Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil
I think it speaks for itself.
I think it speaks for itself.
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/cash/#24h
Bcash mempool has over 80 MB of <5 sat/byte transactions, so miners aren't even bothering to include them in blocks because they probably think that it's a spam, but some of those transactions probably belong to genuine users, which proves that fee market is a vital part of the protocol (I saw some people seriously suggesting to cap max fee, lol).
But what I would like to see is how many Bcash real nodes will leave the network after some periods of time of 8 MB blocks, and how much RAM, bandwidth and disk resources it takes to run a Bcash node under full load, so we can compare it with BitFury's estimations for 8 MB blocks.
Why don't you just say BCH, to make it even shorter but less offensive?
Of course the fee marker is a vital part of the protocol.
Whoever had though otherwise must had been an idiot.
