I respectfully disagree, BTC has still more probabilities of succeeding imo. Blake2b fork chose the easy road. Instead of trying to fight on the high difficulty POW, Blake chose to reduce the difficulty by hardforking. The way they selected the hashing algo in a couple of days only on a discord channel via a hash on low POW Testnet is dubious. Blake fork did not manage to convince any major open source project owners to adopt their hardfork. I also don't know any Bitcoin merchant stating that they support the blake fork.

Blake state that Bitcoin sha256d has been captured, yet they are the one who try to capture it. Blake has rendered worth billions of $ of Bitcoin believers useless by changing the algo.

They state that their mining is more decentralized while the blake2b mining machines are all out of stock or very high price and not as accessible as sha256 miners. Also they claim Datum is proof of mining decentralization while it's easily prone to sibyl mining. Their solutions? Block mining rewards for one whole year.

I am pro-bip110 changes but against that fork. I think bip-110 should have tried harder to win on the SHA chain to force a real consensus instead of forking off.