📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07 📝 Original message:On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at ...

Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /

npub1g6v…l5wd

2023-06-07 17:48:48

in reply to nevent1q…ws33

📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07
📝 Original message:On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides
> of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in
> serious legal trouble.
>

If the exchange uses an UTXO from before the fork to pay their clients,
then they are guaranteed to count as paying on all forks. The exchange
doesn't need to specifically pay out for each fork.

As long as the exchange doesn't accidently double spend an output, even
change addresses are valid.

It is handling post-fork deposits where the problem can occur. If they
only receive coins on one fork, then that should cause the client to be
credited with funds on both forks.

The easiest thing would be to refuse to accept deposits for a while
before/after the fork happens.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email>; This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>;
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/9f4b728c/attachment-0001.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:48:48

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "dbad8dfd99dd4032887fa57b305794f010ebfeda21419156b86bf6fec2aa33ee", "pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e", "created_at": 1686160128, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce", "", "root" ], [ "e", "cdf17419ddade9612cfe41217e0b29613815a1e8a5f85f8356fc204f8e4c46a0", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "08bb05e181e6c923b6bd3a69552d5ed716608f30a97d0ad12ffdd1b1c866f04a" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides\n\u003e of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in\n\u003e serious legal trouble.\n\u003e\n\nIf the exchange uses an UTXO from before the fork to pay their clients,\nthen they are guaranteed to count as paying on all forks. The exchange\ndoesn't need to specifically pay out for each fork.\n\nAs long as the exchange doesn't accidently double spend an output, even\nchange addresses are valid.\n\nIt is handling post-fork deposits where the problem can occur. If they\nonly receive coins on one fork, then that should cause the client to be\ncredited with funds on both forks.\n\nThe easiest thing would be to refuse to accept deposits for a while\nbefore/after the fork happens.\n\u003chttps://www.avast.com/sig-email\u003e This email has been sent from a\nvirus-free computer protected by Avast.\nwww.avast.com \u003chttps://www.avast.com/sig-email\u003e\n\u003c#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/9f4b728c/attachment-0001.html\u003e", "sig": "97572ba8f9ab8b1bfa1b0f8f95c4858da84287ab64639fa3f54a402ccd91cae381f3989249be1d7db680dc8b99cfd6ce2d2512c25fe5f4797ce0e84c12ae68d8" }