With BTC wait 3 confirms to be assumed safe.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.
Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.
With BCH wait 6 confirms to be assumed safe.
Any reorg higher than those #s,
then double spends could occur, and then you have the panic, anything below those #s, and no one really cares.
There's a reason why with BTC its 3 and BCH its 6, you forgot to mention that part...
The reason is the same for both,
that is the recommend confirmations from the developers for assumed safe transactions.
Feel free to outline a post why there is a difference in the numbers of confirmations required by the developers.
"The reason is the same for both" doesn't even make sense as an answer.
But to give you an outline, it has to do with hash rate. It means that a BCH transaction is much more vulnerable at 3 confirmations than BTC.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html
True.
But hashrate per chain is plastic. Hashrate is freely transferable between BTC, BCH, and SV. Currently, it is 1.8% more profitable to mine on BTC than it is on BCH (source: coin.dance). What would happen if BCH becomes significantly more profitable?
So, yes. To reiterate Khaos77's statement, the reason is the same for both.