This sounds like a great idea until you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Similar to most "it's so easy, you just" ideas.

Seriously, chill, then think about how you'd implement it. Then think how it'd go wrong. Then think about how to fix those problems. Repeat until you realize there's a better solution or until you solve the problem without making it overly convoluted. More often than not the former is the better option. More often the latter is just a variant of the sunk cost fallacy and your ego. Reality is (un)surprisingly complex and solutions aren't usually trivial

▲ dimgl 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is an overly negative response to a genuine solution. There are a million reasons you shouldn't do X or Y.

More than likely GitHub would have to maintain their own internal wallet solution for this, which is a big engineering lift. But we're all just having a discussion.

	▲	godelski 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`> to a genuine solution` Except it isn't. It is a lazy solution and impractical one `> More than likely GitHub would have to maintain their own internal wallet solution` Great, so you even found one of the main issues, which pushes off the problem to a third party which makes it an impossible solution for anyone but GitHub (still a problematic "solution" though) `> This is an overly negative response` Yet it isn't because even as you noted it's not realistic to implement. There's two types of lazy, and this is the kind that creates more work, not less