DAA economic analysis, following @931 @292 and @4179's disc…

Thus far, analysis has been largely limited to either pointing to historical cases, or to analyzing under the same assumption as is consistent with the history, and that is... Very little real use/transaction fees, where the block size is unbounded.

BSV is scaling. BSV blocks are unbounded in size. Adoption on BSV, as in transaction volume, is increasing.

https://coinmetrics.io/charts/#assets=btc,bsv_roll=7_left=FeeTotUSD_zoom=1549859785396.1348,1583499562680.5068_smoothOutliers=true

The above linked chart is tracking the actual transaction fees paid to miners in BTC vs BSV.

This is fundamentally the most important figure when analyzing DAA effects under the proposed scenario, especially as the inflation halving schedule continues.

What happens if BSV reaches fee parity with the coinbase subsidy/inflation schedule?

50% of miner revenue becomes divorced from the block production rate and is instead dependent on number of transactions included in a block.

BTC does not have this flexibility due to the block size limit. Q Supplied is a constant, with small flexibility for Segwit's "block weight" accounting hack.

This still doesn't account for price changes, however, BSV miners are building fiat-consistent transaction pricing contracts.

If a significant portion of miner revenue comes from such contracts, or API driven fiat-consistent fee pricing, the game changes.

Under this scenario, BSV miner revenue is much more consistent than BTC miner revenue is.

This certainly doesn't look good for BTC, but for BSV, especially given the flexible Q Supplied, there really isn't much reason to worry.

If anything, this just creates more reason to increase the chained transaction limit so that user actions don't get interrupted. That would reduce revenue flow to BSV miners after a certain amount of time without a block mined.

To be clear...

If transaction fee based revenue is 50% for a 10 minute average block... Consider that it will be 66% for a 20 minute average block... And 75% for a 30 minute average block...

The mining dynamics skew hugely in BSV's favor.

So if, as I understand it, the DAA change is the only real hard forking change to come, then waiting until transaction volume is high enough to maintain quality of service is the only real consideration left, and it solves the DAA issues... For BSV.

Regarding how this affects BCH, I believe BCH will see massive swings in hash power, and it will face huge variance in block times as a result of time-since-last-block dependent revenue on BSV.

It is likely that there will be <10 minute spans with >6 blocks found, followed by extended periods with very few blocks found.

Essentially, given the 50% from fees average revenue on BSV scenario, until BSV hits a certain threshold of waiting fees, BCH and BTC will have BSV miner's hash power on their chains.

It mostly depends on where BSV's price is compared to BTC/BCH as to how volatile these swings are.

If BCH has any significant usage, this will be hugely detrimental for their chain.