pull down to refresh
cc stands for cowboy credits, so it is a credit or would you say that this is the wrong wording? if it is a credit, then it is like a claim to sats and not really sats. isn't that exactly the system we want to avoid with bitcoin? please correct me if i'am wrong
Depends on whether you think microtransactions are a better system than pre-paid credits. The reason I don't have it right now is because there is no good solution without running a server (because the embedded lnd for both Zeus and Blixt eat my phone's battery in about 12h) and I'm reorganizing my servers slowly at the moment.
Are you zapping people, or content? Me, I zap content. It is irrelevant to me as a zapper whether the author of that content decided whether they force themselves to reuse said value on SN alone (CCs) or not.
I don't like CCs, but I like people that are banks yet claim they aren't much less.
i also zap content not people
but i understand the argument, that when you don't like cc and zap people using cc, you're indirectly supporting their decision to use cc
isn't using a custodial lightning wallet better than using credits? on a scale
If that were true then if someone then goes to spend their sats to buy hire an assassin to get rid of their wife, you're indirectly supporting femicide.
isn't using a custodial lightning wallet better than using credits? on a scale
Not in my world. Custodial wallets posing as real solutions for payments are the true evil. If I wanted that then why am I not using SEPA to tip you?
that is a strawmen. or maybe i didn't word it correctly. let me try again
if i zap someone without a wallet attached, the person doesn't receive what i've sent. before this discussion: i thought when i zap someone the person gets bitcoin. i am coming from nostr, where that is the case. and i assumed zapping here means the same. which obviously it doesn't
If I wanted that then why am I not using SEPA to tip you?
because you can't. in my worldview it is a scale. you seem to disagree, which is fine
that is a strawm[a]n
Yes, I just hyperbole'd your own though.
if i zap someone without a wallet attached, the person doesn't receive what i've sent.
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.) The thing they lose is portability. That's their choice. Is it a good situation? No. Are there usable, user-friendly, non-custodial mobile apps that support NWC for sending? No (but Zeus is working on it.)
i am coming from nostr, where that is the case.
Not entirely. In nostr zaps, you publicly broadcast some json that could but also could not have happened. It's not a recording of facts, but a recording of virtue signaling.
because you can't.
Exactly! Just like right now, I do not have a server with LND running, so I can't zap you sats and you cannot zap me sats. Are you objecting to that?
Bottom line, let's not judge others. If people dislike Darth because he's a toxic maxi and judgmental, the solution is probably not to reciprocate the toxicity and judgment.
i thought about this a little bit more
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.) The thing they lose is portability. That's their choice. Is it a good situation? No. Are there usable, user-friendly, non-custodial mobile apps that support NWC for sending? No (but Zeus is working on it.)
isn't the thing about bitcoin that it is portable. i can send it to anyone with a wallet. that makes 1 cc not equal to 1 sat. or where is my thinking wrong?
Not entirely. In nostr zaps, you publicly broadcast some json that could but also could not have happened. It's not a recording of facts, but a recording of virtue signaling.
are you saying, when on nostr i see the confirmation of my zap, that the other person maybe did not receive my zap? i am pretty sure that the receiving wallet sends back a confirmation of the received funds and the client displays that
Exactly! Just like right now, I do not have a server with LND running, so I can't zap you sats and you cannot zap me sats. Are you objecting to that?
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...
where is my thinking wrong?
It's not. But note that SN != bitcoin. It just uses sats as a unit of account and allows someone (optionally) to connect a wallet. I don't think that it is reasonable to complain to users of a provided feature about their usage of it. The reason why the feature is there is because the tradeoffs for connecting LN in this way are still rather heavy: either you run a server with a very hot wallet which means you need to actually secure it, or you run Zeus on your phone which is currently still buggy and it sucks battery, or you go custodial. If you don't want to do custodial, you need a rather sturdy setup which I don't think many stackers have right now.
are you saying, when on nostr i see the confirmation of my zap, that the other person maybe did not receive my zap?
I'm saying that no message can prove that the invoice actually was paid, and it can easily be faked. NIP-57 says this too:
The zap receipt is not a proof of payment, all it proves is that some nostr user fetched an invoice. The existence of the zap receipt implies the invoice as paid, but it could be a lie given a rogue implementation.
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...
I think you mean "SN with a connected wallet". And I can choose that, this choice is a feature. If you want me to not use SN when not connecting a wallet, just make a pull request to delete the feature of buying CCs; it's easy.
isn't the thing about bitcoin that it is portable. [...]
ok, this is beyond typos; you're using the wrong word, entirely.
please read about fungibility, or simply take my word for it: "portability" is understandable in context, however, the fundamental property to which you refer is most accurately termed fungibility.
thank you for the exchange. i try not to judge people and try to understand their worldview. sometimes i can learn from it, sometimes i don't. sometimes i can adabt my own worldview, sometimes i don't. that is just life
strawm[a]n
i hate making typos, but love it when people let me know
I think we can always learn, most people aren't evil, we just have to try and take a step back sometimes. It's better that we do it often, that's why I went to punch a bag for 2 days in a row now, so that I can have calmer conversations haha. Too bad I have to travel soon.
1 CC = 1 sat. Same as using cashu. SN is a closed mint.
You cannot buy CCs with SEPA or other thing. You cannot spend CCs outside SN.
Is so fucking simple game.
I will repeat: most of people attaching an external wallet are coming here to assmilk for sats. I don't. And the fact that I use only CCs show that I am not interested in earning sats because I cannot use CCs outside SN.
I use CCs exclusively to post on SN and zap good content or downzap stupid people and shitcoiners.
i thought about this a little bit more
i have some cc and want to get sats. since you say 1 cc = 1 sat. how do i do that?
If you have CCs you just have to zap them to somebody else on SN.
When you zap on SN, it first send CCs if you have, after you empty them it starts sending sats from your external.
thank you, i think i understand your arguments now better. i am not sure i agree with your argument, i have to think about it. also have to look into cashu at some point, still have no clue about it
cashu is just a gift card from a mint. You give to the mint sats, they give you tokens.
You can use those tokens between mint users or melt them into sats by paying any other LN invoice.
Exactly like CCs from SN, but with the exception that cashu can be spent with any other LN wallet / invoice, the redeem / melt is on the fly. and CCs cannot do that.
I know most of people here hate me for telling the truth and ignore my advice, but I will still telling you some aspects that stackers should take in consideration using SN with an external wallet:
Not sure if you were running any LN node (private or public), I've run several ones (see my bio and my guides) and I know enough about running them.
- why would you attach a personal node that could be monitored for anything you do on SN? Yes, SN guys seems to be trusted, but you never know when somebody else is using SN data for "other stuff". Many stackers also are opening a direct channel with SN node and use that for zaps. WRONG again, that is just skipping the multiple hops that can hide your real nodeID. Yes, SN is using a LNproxy for all zaps, but not sure how that works with a direct channel to SN node. Maybe will just fail and take another alternative route if available.
- CCs are more private if you look from outside. Yes, if somebody will hijack SN code or have access and want to do evil things, can still look what you zap and how much. But they will not see from where are coming those sats. CCs is a DECOY for me. As I use on nostr a decoy Rizful node. Privacy also means you do NOT reveal more info about you, not just hiding it...
- stackers are not looking into the how much hassle exist in using all the time zaps back and forth. Maybe because they are not zapping too much and just expect tto be zapped a shit tons of sats for crap posts. That will increase the LN node database enormously not talking about paying more fees in routing these zaps. But yeah people do not look into these details when they run a LN node for SN wallet. You also have to take care of liquidity and routes.
I WILL REPEAT THIS: ATTACHING AN EXTERNAL WALLET TO SN IS NOT HELPING AT ALL.
External wallet = a real personal LN node wallet behind it not a bulslhit crap custodial account.
speak your truth, i will never hate you for doing that
But some people here are accusing me of "boycotting LN ecosystem" because I use CCs is just stupid.... now you can see the ridiculousness in their accusations and their personal vendetta because they hate me telling the truth.
i understand both views. there is no right or wrong, just people acting differently for different reasons
Be careful what you consider "views". Look into his posts history and you will understand that his "views" are not views, but intents of manipulations.
You have to learn how to read the propaganda machine.
I suggest you to read the book "Propaganda" by Ed Bernays. Then you will understand much better what I mean and the whole world.
please correct me if i'am wrong
Yes you are wrong.
And is nothing wrong using some credits INSIDE SN.
SN will not make any big difference in "changing the world" with bitcoin.
If you really want to change the world, stop using fiat outside SN. That will make a difference, not by using some meaningless CCs inside CC.
SN is a game. That's all.
Yes you are wrong.
i fail to see what is wrong with my argument
If you really want to change the world, stop using fiat outside SN
i try to do that whenever i can, but why are you making an exception for sn?
i asked before if it is about the price. i think i would understand the argument if you say: using ln on sn costs more than using cc and that is why i use cc. people try to save on costs, which i can understand
SN is a game not a real world. A game that use some credits is just fine.
I spend my sats in REAL world not in online games.
I earn in sats, I spend in sats, I save in sats. That's all. SN is not a real world.
not sure i can follow what you mean with the real world. i guess you draw a line which defines what is in the real world and what is not. and for the things not in the real world, like a game, you're okay to use credits. i think i understand your reasoning
Did you play online games? Like World of Warcraft is the best example. You have some kind of in-game currency to buy and trade stuff. Is not a REAL world, so why would I use real world money in a game?
I use my sats (real money) for real stuff that is important for me: house, food, security. And I spend it wisely.
SN want to make some experiments using LN and sats? Fine with that, I "buy" CCs with sats and that's it. I do not need to attach any external wallet because I am not trading anything real in the SN game. We are just talking here. And to have a system of control, talking with credits for upvotes.
Not everything in this world must use sats. That is a wrong concept of bitcoinization.
i understand you now a lot better than before. i think where we differ is, that i don't make a difference between real world and a game. i played wow and i think replacing the ingame gold with bitcoin would be awesome, people exchanged the ingame gold for fiat. for me credit is an extra abstraction, which i try to avoid if possible. but i understand now, why you use cc. and you mentioned cashu, which also seems to be a credit based system. in the end it is a scale and not everyone can transact on the bitcoin base layer. there has to be some trust involved. and everyone is free to choose what to use. free to disagree or agree with the decisions others make. peace!
Blizzard do not have to add bitcoin in game. Just add a simple way to exchange gold wow for sats if the user wants to convert them for real world money.
Adding real sats in WoW will be stupid and again creating a lot of friction and not necessary hassle.
Wrong.
If you want to zap someone with sats you need to attach a LN wallet.
If like Darthcoin you are a lazy hypocrit who rants about living on the bitcoin standard but is actually full of shit and doesn't then you dont.
If you are zapping with CCs then you are not supporting the entire LN infrastructure.
You are also preventing others who have attached wallets from receiving sats.
By not attaching a wallet you are explicitly opting out of the P2P payments between yourself and all other SNs participants.
By refusing to attach a wallet you are remaining subservient to the centralised SN CC credit system and boycotting the LN.
Everytime I post, comment or zap a node gets its fee as does my LN wallet coinos so I am supporting the LN ecosystem - not so for whenever @DarthCoin posts or comments or zaps...he is actively boycotting the LN ecosystem.
If you are zapping with CCs then you are not supporting the entire LN infrastructure.
You are so stupid LOL So for you SN is the entire "LN infrastructure" LOL your idiocy have no limits.
TLDR: there's no real need to attach an external wallet to post on SN. CCs are just sats INSIDE SN.
The horse and pistol is more like an useless virtual signaling.