> abusers should eventually run out of money... right?

Not a fair comparison imo. The have little in common other than someone is spending money to do something we don't like. There's little expectation of financial payoff for downzapping in this case. Once a jpeg is in a block, it's in the block forever. Individual network participants lack unilateral recourse if a miner includes it in a block.

-----------

Anyway, perhaps all this is reason enough to implement `blocking` features to prevent consistent butts from seeing your posts/comments.

k00b

I'm subscribed to den so I'm feeling this less than I could. I hear you though.

How to present the fight is not something I've thought about much. e.g. negative net investments should probably be presented differently.

Even without subscribing, there are some benefits to being able to see it in the `hot` list.  For example, you can see when new comments are made more easily.

Personally, I do not mind it if people only use CC's to zap.  I tend to use up my CCs pretty quick anyway.  But as for me, personally, I do want to support direct P2P micropayments, so I choose to attach wallet and zap real sats when possible.

Or, they could just attach a spending wallet.

Is that too much to ask of a dedicated Bitcoiner who has earned 1.7 millions sats here on SNs?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or as koob indicates, just subscribe to den.

I can assure you, the CCP funds me more than adequately.

Solomonsatoshi

Fair enough to suspend judgment for a bit.  This is like the ordinals debate a bit, in the sense that abusers should eventually run out of money... 

But just to push back a bit on the concept of "Fighting sats with sats".  That still requires us to know the existence of a post in the first place, which we may not if we have a sats filter up.  Unless you mean that the poster needs to fight their adversary with their own sats.

AskSN

Where have you set your sat filters?

Fair enough to suspend judgment for a bit.  This is like the ordinals debate a bit, in the sense that abusers should eventually run out of money... *right*?

But just to push back a bit on the concept of "Fighting sats with sats".  That still requires us to know the existence of a post in the first place, which we may not if we have a sats filter up.  Unless you mean that the poster needs to fight their adversary with their own sats.