@digitsu It's incredible you think is a solid argument given the complete lack of understanding of how lightning works. You can always settle channels on chain, it doesn't matter if the counterparty goes offline. SMH
@asiahodl@startyman "Simply signing a message" requires having code for generic message signing, which also comes with risk. This isn't metamask with a popup. Its signing from cold storage usually with multiple participants. It's often easier to move funds instead.
@asiahodl Auditors absolutely can do proofs through movement of funds.
Most orgs already have code to move funds from cold storage, but not all have code for generic message signing.
When trying to perform a quick audit, movement of funds is often easier
@Joeleao_073@WatcherGuru These numbers arent close to correct. They differ wildly from the recent PoR from many exchanges, even accounting for the time difference
@BullMarketGainz @davidbelle_ Kraken futures allows more than 5x leverage
They also list 215 assets (coinbase has 229)
KRAK tokens sounds great an all, but FTT made FTX blow up, so not sure its always a great idea
@josh_418 Anyone can spam LTC addresses and make it look more active than it is. LTC brings nothing new to crypto and is low rent bitcoin. MWEB sont help because no one actually cares about privacy. See Monero price for proof.
@devl_in_details Except single txs are also meaningless since they can be for 1 to 1000s of people. Every bitcoin block could just be one tx with all the inputs and outputs everyone wanted to include. Then the energy use per tx would be 1000x worse, yet nothing changed.
@devl_in_details@nic_carter@yaffebellany Yes, you shouldn't use a metric like energy/tx, when the obvious extrapolation is that bitcoin would use X energy IF it had Y txs. Bitcould would use about the same energy currently if Y was 0 or 1 billion.