5 ms·
Assuming a fork is expected and the PoW chain is running alongside the PoS chain, wouldn’t this cause a massive run up in ETH holdings to end up with assets on
by koolba 4y ago
Assuming a fork is expected and the PoW chain is running alongside the PoS chain, wouldn’t this cause a massive run up in ETH holdings to end up with assets on both chains?
- foepys 4y agoThis already happened multiple times, e.g. Ethereum Classic and for Bitcoin with Bitcoin Cash a few years back. It created quite a bit of drama when exchanges refused to give customers the respective forked coins.
- silentsea90 4y agoExchanges refused to give customers forked coins? Why?!
- wmf 4y agoIt takes a certain amount of development work for an exchange to support a new coin so sometimes they don't do it.
- silentsea90 4y agoI'm not sure it's that much work if there's something of tangible current value being held from their rightful owners, esp when they keep adding all sorts of coins. There should at least be a way to extract them even if the exchange doesn't support trading them
- baobabKoodaa 4y agoI agree that's the way the world should be, but it isn't.
- landemva 4y agoThose who care about claiming forks will not use an exchange. People have varying priorities.
- xorcist 4y agoForking a chain is trivial. There are websites that lets anyone do it with a single click. You can't realistically expect exchanges to trade all possible fork coins.
- thematrixturtle 4y agoNo, because the merge in itself does not create new value, it simply splits existing value in two. So 1 old PoW ETH today will be worth (say) 0.9 PoS ETH and 0.1 PoW ETH tomorrow. To be clear, that's the theory, reality is a little more complicated. This happened earlier with ETH and ETC, as well as BTC and a whole bunch of forks, and in practice there was always a bit of "value" created from thin air, at least temporarily, with original + fork > original before fork.