Guys, I've been reading this crazy stuff posted by someone called "Shelby Moore"
The anyone can spend attack is very legit for anyone with historical perspective on how governments work. In the same way that governments attempt to confiscate gold, if they believed Bitcoin would continue to exist in some manner and not die off, they would love to confiscate all Bitcoins in the same way by invalidating all coins on the segwit fork while having purchased all BSV coins (the now claimed 'real' fork) for pennies on the dollar beforehand, giving themselves and the Zio-bankers more of a monopoly ownership.
I would say this is not really even a malevolent banker attack, but the responsibility for this lies solely on the people who pushed segwit through while pretending it was not a hard fork when it really is. You see, a change in the security model of Bitcoin makes coins non-fungible no matter how seemingly trivial the change is, and a change in fungibility is a hard fork. All that matters is if the change exposes one chain to an attack vector the other one is not exposed to. They pretended that fungbility doesn't matter at all because Bitcoins were already non-fungible in the first place, and this could be their eventual downfall.
