waxwing on Nostr: Yeah there's both a cynical and a non-cynical dismissal of my suggestion to Coinbase ...
Yeah there's both a cynical and a non-cynical dismissal of my suggestion to Coinbase custody here.
The non-cynical one would mention that the taproot-only restriction is very significant to them (both smaller anon set and disruption of their workflow; for their security measures they'd probably dismiss such a disruption out of hand; don't underestimate how slowly tech processes can change in big institutions). It would also mention that this is only addressing proof of *assets* not liability proofs which has tended to be the much bigger sticking point. For myself, I would find even *just* a proof of assets from entities like Coinbase custody or Bukele, to be a very good thing.
The non-cynical one would mention that the taproot-only restriction is very significant to them (both smaller anon set and disruption of their workflow; for their security measures they'd probably dismiss such a disruption out of hand; don't underestimate how slowly tech processes can change in big institutions). It would also mention that this is only addressing proof of *assets* not liability proofs which has tended to be the much bigger sticking point. For myself, I would find even *just* a proof of assets from entities like Coinbase custody or Bukele, to be a very good thing.