4 ms·
Interesting theory via Twitter: > If you look at BCH and BSV you will see the coins also moved - this looks like someone moved to do a split of forks. The goo
by kenneth 7y ago
Interesting theory via Twitter:
> If you look at BCH and BSV you will see the coins also moved - this looks like someone moved to do a split of forks. The good news (if that is the case) is that this likely will mean sale of BCH and BSV, not BTC!
https://twitter.com/shanepicker/status/1170517377441849351 https://twitter.com/shanepicker/status/1170517377441849351
If that's the case, it implies that someone is looking to liquidate the value of their BCH/BSV they got for free in the forks, and need to move the BTC too since otherwise the transaction would be valid in all 3 chains.
- lawn 7y agoThere are other ways to split the coins. The simplest one would probably be to send a small amount of BCH to the address (which only exists on that chain), wait for it to confirm, and then move all the coins including the BCH making the transaction only valid on that chain. You can then do the same on the BSV chain, leaving the BTC chain untouched.
- Kiro 7y ago> and need to move the BTC too since otherwise the transaction would be valid in all 3 chains. Care to elaborate? I don't understand how the three chains can have any affliction after they forked.
- tinco 7y agoThe forks are only changes in the rules, the keys and the addresses are the same. So if you've got money that hasn't moved since the fork, then any transaction to that money is valid in all forks. Only if different forks accept different transactions to the same account does this stop working. I haven't looked into how people avoid this, I suppose you could bully people by listening on the fastest chain for transactions and then rebroadcasting those to slower chains, in theory you have some chance of messing up their shit.