reply on: Stacker Saloon \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

142 sats \ 33 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

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

100 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 18h

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

42 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 18h

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

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

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 18h

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

142 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 15h

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

144 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 14h

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?

142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 13h

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

142 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 13h

Alright. To me, this means not so much that the downzap function itself is the cause of any the visibility issue when it comes to boosts, but more that the boosts are an all-or-nothing concept in terms of viz, that can only be countered by bidding war or - since today - be outlawed.

I'll have to think about this a bit more but that's where I'm at.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h

Alrighty, downzapper set to 10.

142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 18h

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

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 18h

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.

0 sats \ 22 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug

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

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.

310 sats \ 4 replies \ @OneOneSeven 20 Aug

387 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Aug

you've still got it

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @OneOneSeven 20 Aug

Memes

maketh

man

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Aug

LOL good one! I love instant memes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h

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.

102 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug

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.

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?

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug

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.