Yeah, my guess is that they picked the Satoshi Test because it's the only one they can automate without human interaction. Otherwise they need to hire a lot more support staff.
Discussion
Signing messages also has that property though, technically. I guess you mean that, in practice, it needs human intervention, for the reason i mentioned above.
Until wallets broadly support it, asking for signed messages will be a a support nightmare. Especially because this verification process is triggered _after_ a deposit takes place, at which point it's late to tell the user they should used a legacy base58 address.
Ironically, as easily as lazy corporations can automate this compliance procedure, it's just as simple for an adversary to automate the act of complying with it.
The most insane part IMHO is they demand the satoshi test even when you send BTC to an exchange. As if by being able to move the UTXO to the exchange I didn't already prove to be the owner JFC
None of the methods listed by EMA prove anything (as I told them in my email). They're completely pointless rituals. But this method is actively harmful.
None of the methods listed by EBA prove anything (as I told them in my email). They're completely pointless rituals. But this method is actively harmful.