Controversial opinion; For BSV to best compete, it should …

Drawbacks include:
1. Any association with BTC.
2. Sounding like BSV needs BTC.
3. Being mentioned in the same breath as BTC.

Totally agree - we are going to put all the BTC blocks on BSV and then the raspberry pi army will have a reliable place to download and verify the entire BTC chain

Understand the animosity, but hear’s the bottom line; You can’t hardfork hashrate.

Sha256 miners are incentive driven, and would embrace a merged-mined BSV (short term) Then BTC would have to compete with BSV on functionality (long term).

Also known as "surrender" and "things not likely to happen".

BTC halving will likely have minimal effect on its hashrate; a few short term difficulty reductions at most.

You’re spot on with BSV miner incentives; let’s share them with all SHA256 miners! What do you think merged-mining BSV would do to its hashrate?

"You can’t hardfork hashrate."

Certainly true but you can lure or incentivize miners to mine on a more profitable chain. Will it be more profitable to continue mining on BTC if the reward is cut in half or will it be more profitable to SWITCH to mine BSV?

At current prices, even after the next reward reduction, it’s still 10x more profitable to mine BTC. BSV hashrate is below 1% of BTC.

Not going to beat BTC going toe-to-toe. For BSV to succeed, they must use BTCs weight against them; the Judo approach.

I don't know much about merged mining, could you explain it more or share resources?

@4770 BSV is trying to build a fee market for miners - if we are able to onboard millions to using apps like Twetch, we could potentially pay miners more than on BTC even if the BSV price is less than BTC

Here’s a great place to start:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification

Bitcointalk forums also contain a fair amount of info. Merged mining still fairly popular with LTC and a few others.