Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 08:28:19 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 08:26:22 AM

You are right, they will chose one chain. But that doesn't say that they can check incoming deposits against the deposit on the other chain. When they received the bitcoins not only on their chosen chain but on the fork too then they can accept that deposit because it is riskless.

Why should they not monitor the other chain and instead close down completely? That makes no sense businesswise.

You are talking nonsense (again) - if you accept coins that end up being on a failed fork then you cannot spend them. Got it?

So if I am exchange A and I accept coins on Fork A and am giving someone fiat for those coins then I've already spent the fiat and end up becoming a bag-holder of a useless alt.

Now tell me why any business is going to take on such a risk?

You write as if this exchange wouldn't own the same address on the other chain then too. But they would ideally. Well, probably depends on the way their wallet creates addresses. Core might be not good if i remember correctly.

But let's assume they own the same deposit address on both chains. Then it would not matter if they receive the coins on both chains and the chain they used on their exchange suddenly dies. They still would have the coins on the other chain. Nothing would be lost.

I hope you got now what i meant.