Chemical Potential Input Options

No, there will be no difference (when using TS -> TBtrans).

This is because the bias applied is self-consistently solved and each of the electrodes are considered "in equilibrium". I.e. when you apply _any_ V to any electrode you merely lift the electronic structure of the electrode accordingly.
This is a good exercise to assert.

So, essentially you are free to set the applied bias' as you please. But, for two terminal cases you are encouraged to maintain the -V/2 -- V/2 scenario due to the following:

When TBtrans calculates transport, DOS, etc. the energy reference is the "Fermi level" of the non-bias system. I.e. if you apply 0 -- V you will experience a change of reference energy by V/2 because the self-consistency will lift/reduce all states so that charge neutrality is retained.

If this isn't clear, please perform _any_ 2-terminal bias calculation with -V/2 -- V/2 and 0 -- V and compare the two graphs. The latter should be shifted by V/2. And for practical cases it becomes much more convenient to retain the -V/2 -- V/2 scheme because then you do not have to "correct" the energies to compare different applied bias'.

Also, your mentioned blocks are not consistent with a 0 -- V bias, they should look like this:

%block TS.ChemPot.Left
mu V
...
%endblock

%block TS.ChemPot.Right
mu 0. eV
...
%endblock

And importantly, all energy contours should also be shifted accordingly (in case you want 0.05 on both sides of the chemical potentials):
%block TBT.Contour.line
from -0.05 eV to V + 0.05 eV
delta 0.001 eV
method mid-rule
%endblock TBT.Contour.line

Note that transiesta is not going to handle if you apply a negative bias with the above input. This is due to lack of implementation, but again, the end results are identical so no need to introduce such difficulty.