pull down to refresh
@Scoresby
stacking since: #74100longest cowboy streak: 233
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 20 Nov \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
And if it's bitcoin, should the shark be orange?
Hustle! I dm'd you on nostr a while ago. Maybe it got lost in the relay forest. Let's talk sometime.
I love the idea of experimenting with the SN incentive structure!
The downsides I can see with this proposal are:
-
It is hard on newbies (if you don't have a lot of sats, it might become hard to post, and I don't know how freebies would work in this scenario -- although, at the moment, I can't remember the last time a freebie post showed up on my SN front page...)
-
Positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement (seeing the little pink writing in my notifications that informs me that I stacked some sats in rewards feels great! knowing that I don't have to pay quite as much to post probably won't feel as good. SN has been really smart to get the "make people feel good" thing right on a lot of counts. I'd hate to see one of those go away.)
In my perfect world, the base case for SN is a free market: this would mean that there is no need for rewards for zaps: it is in stackers' own interest to zap good content so that there is more good content on SN making SN a more enjoyable place to spend time.
However, rewards were one of the things that blew my mind when I first started using SN and definitely got me more engaged than I might otherwise have been. On most social media, I'm the kind of lurker-user who reads a lot, occasionally posts, but rarely gets into conversations. Rewards gave me a nudge to zap and interact more than I otherwise would have.
Rewards are clearly an important part of how SN functions.
Rewards for zaps are the hardest to understand and the easiest way to game [rewards]. #771504
This rings true. Rewards for zaps feel like the most complicated part of SN. It is difficult to understand what behavior gets a stacker to the top of the leaderboard. And so a method for assigning rewards that is not solely based on leaderboard status could be interesting.
Rewards are the incentive least directly connected to the behavior that produces them. When you see a notification that says you earned some sats, it's not immediately clear which actions produced this reward. When you look at the leaderboard, it's not immediately clear what put you in the place you are and not somewhere else.
Unlike some of the fun easter eggs on SN, rewards should be as clear as possible. When they are unclear, they dilute their power. Knowing that I made 100 sats in rewards for zapping a specific post is a more powerful feedback loop than knowing I made 300 sats over the course of a day where I posted a couple things, zapped a number of posts, and commented on something else.
I'd love to see rewards become more specifically tied to the behavior they are trying to reward.
10.2k sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 15 Nov \ on: Fun Fact Friday - Best Fun Fact Gets 10,000 Sats meta
France's longest border is shared with...Brazil.
(730km in French Guiana)
The benefit of saving in Bitcoin becomes apparent to the public when number goes up.
The benefit of holding your own keys becomes apparent when exchanges rug and banks tell you how to use your money.
NGU may be happening, but most nocoiners seem fine with an ETF or MSTR. I wonder how many new Bitcoin holders have been minted this time around.
The FTX and Celsius rugs of the last bear market should have convinced a lot of people to hold their own keys. I wonder how many.
It is possible that a tool of Bitcoin adoption stronger than the carrot of NGU and stronger than the stick of getting rugged is simply convenience.
Right now Bitcoin does not easily solve problems in most (western) people's lives. The most obvious problem it solves is being a better means of savings and that message doesn't seem to have gotten through. But as far as other problems, I don't think it is obvious to Normie's what it does to make life better and so it isn't something they are interested in.
Which brings me to soft-fork proposals: is it the case that some combination of changes to Bitcoin will tip it into the obviously useful category for the masses? In the same way that there was a point where smart phones suddenly became essential to daily life. There may be an argument for changing Bitcoin a little if it gets us closer to undeniably useful (and doesn't degrade censorship resistance). Thoughts?
Yeah, that may be why he called his post 'The Consensus Conundrum.' I've been trying to do a bit of introspection myself and figure out how I expect to see any future consensus changes to come about. I think I'm hoping that one set of changes becomes a clear front runner, meaning most people want it over the others. Of course, I realize I have never once expressed to anyone how I feel about any of the currently proposed changes. And it is probably similar for most bitcoiners. I don't feel like I have enough knowledge to express a worthwhile opinion on the topic. But then that means I'm waiting for some non-specific critical mass of Bitcoin personages to express support of one proposal...
Udi:
i think if no one has any idea what the next step is, that’s a major problem that we have right now
it’s not Core’s “fault” in any meaningful way. it’s just that people are expecting Core to take leadership, and they won’t. but it’s not their “fault” that people expect that
people expect that because the decision makers used to be in Core, and now they aren’t
question here though: where are decision makers now? Steve Lee and co wrote a thing on that
not actually reply to the OP but seems related...
2 yrs ago several Bitcoin Core devs & myself submitted PRs to remove mempoolfullrbf but we were told it isn't a controversial change, that this was merely giving users options, with the default "off."
Recently they changed the default to on, removing the option to turn it off🫠
Consensus changes: always a leadership problem, never a "CI is failing and a rebase is needed" problem. Yet somehow, all 5 of the open PRs against core fail CI and 3/5 need rebase, and likewise 2/3 of the open PRs against inquisition fail CI.
nvk:
Many things here are true, and yet bitcoin just works.
Bitcoin doesn't have to be perfect, just needs to be better than everything else.
Embrace the chaos, people trying to ascribe order to the ever changing spontaneous order like my friend @moneyball with the BCAP project will always be wrong :)
tl;dr past Bitcoin forks were led by one or two people in Core, but Core is trying to wash its hands of fork leadership and that means nothing will happen.
Definitely an interesting thread to watch on twitter today. Lots of thoughtful responses.
Rough consensus is really rough. While I'm not an ossifier, I do think it's okay that Bitcoin is a mess. Probably I would feel differently if I worked in Bitcoin development. It sounds like a slog.
One compelling point James makes is that as more adoption occurs Bitcoin will get even harder to change, so it is possible that we should consider enacting some changes before too long (Great consensus cleanup?).
Whatever happens next in Bitcoin is going to be interesting.
10.3k sats \ 12 replies \ @Scoresby 11 Nov \ on: Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 10,000 Sats meta
The comparison to christian art is apt. It can feel a little preachy or niche. At the same time, some pretty amazing art was created by religious fervor (Buddhas, christian icons, etc..) So maybe bitcoin art won't be so different than that. Someday the pepe memes will be in a museum next to the David...or perhaps not.