pull down to refresh

Roughly the same number that upvoted it or half as many spending 10x more or a quarter as many spending 100x more.

I just can't fathom why so many people upzapped it.

Okay so if - hypothetically and in minecraft - i already downzapped more than it was upzapped, we just need 18 stackers downzapping 1 sat and we good?

reply
142 sats \ 33 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug

At least 10 sats each. Zap weight is log10 of the amount.

reply

Got it. Thank you for making me not read the code from an uber <3

reply
100 sats \ 21 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug

Looks like it's outlawed now, but top boost doesn't consider outlaw status I guess.

I'll ship a fix.

reply
reply
387 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Aug
reply

Memes

maketh

man

reply

LOL good one!
I love instant memes.

reply
110 sats \ 13 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug

Fixed. It's still the top boost in Wild West Mode but that's as intended.

I remember thinking about outlaws as I made the top boost mvp. I prefer demand response I guess.

reply

Thought about the top boost demand-response theory. It would be a great way to maximize territory revenue to have scammer sats try to outbid honest boosts.

Morally, I think the downzap is better - because do we really want to make money off scammers trying to get victims?

I was pondering something else: Do downzaps go 70/30 to territory and rewards like fees? Would be better if these go 100% to rewards IMHO, because 70% is a huge incentive for territory owners to encourage crap content.

reply
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 20 Aug

In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.

What I mean is: it's better to allow a scammer to boost and get visibility, than it is to allow a strong downzapper to hide content.

Reason: the tool we use to banish scammers can also be used by scammers to banish valuable content they don't want others to see.

Imagine a scenario where someone posts about a flaw in a project or bad behavior, if the owner of the project can banish such a post by heavily downzapping.

Don't we run greater risk to the community by allowing a strong power to hide information than we do by allowing a strong power to boost information?

reply

This only works with brigades. So having an unpopular opinion against a mob of fanbois with high trust score will mess you up. But nothing prevents you from posting again? But what's the point if there is a non-receptive majority?

Information wins, just boosts don't?

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug

Downzaps go 70/30 to territory revenue/rewards.

There's no incentive to downzap currently, so I don't think it's likely to be pathological. We have plans to incentivize them which might require a rethink.

reply
202 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 20 Aug

If they would go 100% to rewards, it may already carry better incentive?

I don't know if I've seen three labels on a post before...is this a record?

reply

imagine if it was a "freebie" too and posted by a "bot"

But can a boost be a freebie?

I've seen the outlawed label before when in wild west mode and on posts and comments I replied to.

reply

but have you seen it with the top boost label?

Thank you!

reply

Now 35 zappers. Feels like a Sybil attack. Scammers be scamming. But shall anti scammers be anti scamming too?

reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug

The number of zappers is only part of it.

It's sum(zapper_trust*log10(zap_amount)) and sybils will have zapper_trust equal to zero.

reply

Wait, do downzaps need to be at least 10 sats to matter?

reply

log10(1) == 0, because 10^0 == 1

However, log10(2) ~= 0.3, so, at least 2?

reply

I get that. Did k00b just say it had to be at least 10 to balance out your 18 stacker count?

reply
142 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 21 Aug

Yep, if the goal is to outlaw, downzappers need to zap more than 1 sat.

reply
if the goal is to outlaw

I was thinking about this point in relation to what @Scoresby said on another branch of this discussion:

In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.

Do downzaps have any effect on non-top-boost posts before they trigger the outlaw threshold? I.e. lower ranking on hot on the list view or comments?

reply
142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 21 Aug

Yes, they downrank content until cum_zap_weight - cum_downzap_weight is sufficiently negative.

Alrighty, downzapper set to 10.

reply
142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Aug

They matter at 1 sat, but only for informing the trust graph.

reply

I wish that had occurred to me. I almost always downzapped 1 sat because I only wanted to add weight to the count without pushing too hard on size.

Basically, I just wanted to make it easier for others to get stuff outlawed.

reply