Open fresheneesz opened 3 years ago
Signalling support is specified as an icon in the column and in the legend (example: the exchange has LN nodes, will fully support LN but at the moment doesn't support deposits/withdrawals)
Isn't the "Lightning support?" column redundant with the "status" column? I think it would make a lot of sense to combine them. As it stands, the "Lightning support?" column is misleading.
I see the "Lightning Support" as a declaration, while the "Status" as the current status of their Lightning implementation. So, for example, if an exchange support Lightning and has deposit/withdraw but put them in pause, we can change the status.
Even if "Lightning support" is a declaration of support vs having actual service, its still ambiguous between the declaration of "Our exchange will support withdrawing and depositing via the lightning network" vs "Our exchange company will run a routing lightning node, but we have no plans to making withdrawing and depositing possible on the exchange via lightning". As it stands, given the nature of the list, readers would assume the former and not the latter.
I understand your point, but for the moment I will keep the two columns unless there is another solution that could clarify the difference between two exchanges that support LN but that are different in the way they do that.
I suppose I would suggest perhaps the following changes:
That way both pieces of information are clearly distinguished. At the moment, I don't think there's any information in this chart about deposit-withdrawal support, right? Certainly would be nice to add - its why I got to this page ; )
Bitstamp "supports" lightning by running a lightning node and presumably forwarding transactions. However, since the exchagne doesn't support using lightning, I'd say its misleading to say they "support" it in the table. Perhaps there should be separate columns for deposit/withdrawal support vs some other kind of support.