[dimgl]

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]

  > 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

[dxdm]

> There's two types of lazy, and this is the kind that creates more work, not less

Well put. Thanks for taking the time to call this out. Your two comments here are balm for the mental anguish and annoyance I went through reading the so-full-of-misplaced-confidence original comment.