pull down to refresh
He's putting his real money where his stupid preferences are.
Yup, very true. I respect our enlarged-rewards-pot benefactor for this. And agree with you on the stress test.
most of the stackers other than @Solomonsatoshi are the real problem. [...] If everyone else were doing the same.
this I didn't quite understand. Elaborate?
I'm saying it would be reduced to background noise if the rest of us were similarly convicted.
I'm out here zapping like a mofo... What else ought I do?!
update: see the other comments in the thread, I get it. Scale, cumulative crowd of good peeps outweighing any SS nonsense
Show us your wallet activity to verify you are doing what you say you are.
Silence.
The truth is you are Big Talk No Walk Hypocrit.
Here is my proof that I am a net consumer of content and I expect content providers who wank on about Bitcoin to walk the talk and attach wallet or get downzapped to Hades.
I am using sats via LN to the maximum extent possible...supporting the LN.
Nearly 12000 times in the last year as the above graph verifies.
You are not.
You are minimising your use of and support for sats and LN.
Yaaah downzap me to Hades bro
If everyone else were doing the same, we wouldn't even notice his stupid campaign.
What do you mean?
I've understood this point to be the same point as the one you made in #1438612
In the end the problem isn't so much that downzaps are 0.3, 1, 2 or 3x as powerful. It's that there are not enough zaps in general, and definitely relative to downzap budget.
If everyone zaps with as much conviction as SS, one Stacker's downzaps become less influential.
Unfortunately, I don't think most people want to spend 100k sats a day expressing their social media preferences.
Yes, that's what I thought too, but not sure if that's what he meant, and I'm sure that Undisc has given a lifetime more thought to these things than I.
FWIW, it's not (and cannot be) that everyone needs to spend 100k per day. If I had to do that in January, I would have had to spend more than my gross income that month, lol.
100 stackers 1k per day. 1000 stackers 100 sats per day. 10,000 stackers 10 sats per day... I had that discussion a week and a bit ago too: at larger scale, the equilibrium that Undisc was speaking to the other day is easier to sustain than when the total system is small. Excesses are harder to deal with at small scale, and worse, plutocracies may be a likely equilibrium.
So if someone were to say that in hindsight, no trust november was done too early, I would probably agree with that, even though it is a painful conclusion for me to admit.
Yes, 100 stackers averaging 1k per day doesn't seem at all unreasonable. I doubt we're far from 10 stackers averaging 10k and 100 stackers averaging 1k and 1k stackers averaging 100.
I don't think it was too early for this experiment. We learned a lot from it already, even if some of the lessons won't matter much at scale.
I meant it in the sense of it wouldn't take much to get there, especially if we start zapping harder to elevate signal through this extra noise, which we can afford because the noise is filling our bags.
I've been zapping much more.
My zaps are usually below the average, because I rarely see comments early enough to bet on rewards, so my heuristic is usually just to zap away CCs and rewards from the days when I do get those; however I've been more active, and have somewhat improved the standards to which I hold myself, so I thus have more zapping to do.
We'll probably have to start using more SN features, like subscriptions and actually visiting our favorite territories.
More robust habits will serve us well at scale, anyway.
Aaah yes, if only there wasn't something in SN's recent past that, like, cut the growth into nothingness and made it that much harder to spread to new people
I've realised already that you're often being sarcastic although in this case, I'm not familiar enough with all of SN's history to understand exactly which mechanism you're criticising as the bad one. Your post's closing with "seems to work fine" suggests that you're criticising one of the "trust" mechanisms and are optimistic about the status quo?
Please at least comment "no" if I'm wrong; I really do value your experience and input in the site and consider your opinions worth understanding accurately, even if I might not ultimately agree with all of them.
yeah fair -- I meant the change to introduce CCs and noncustody troubles about a year ago. (Before then, SN operated a custodial wallet itself, and we only operated with sats that you could deposit or withdraw effortlessly).
While I prefer CCs to fiddling with attached wallets (outsourcing custody/custody theatre) I would prefer rolling that change back even more.
do you think there would be too much friction for a closely-affiliated semi-custodial service to be launched by some sufficiently reputed community member, and then the onboarding of new accounts would include it as a default option?
I doubt @k00b would want to do it, given that he's probably the individual decision maker who ultimately made the call that administering custodial wallets was not worth the legal heat; although maybe someone with enough respect for fiat systems, who still cares enough about SN, wants to educate about disintermediation, and already understands how services like CoinOS work...
I wonder whether anyone might actually want to do this; @Solomonsatoshi is probably much happier as a commenter and customer than entrepeneur.
made the call that administering custodial wallets was not worth the legal heat;
I understand that that was the reason: Not my call to make, not me bearing the potential consequences, so there's not too much I can do but voice my concerns as a user.
(In chess we say, "it's always easier to move someone else's pieces")
True, but I suspect the onboarding process can be massively streamlined.
You do not believe content consumers here who ultimately must fund the entire platform if it is to be viable have a right to know which content providers have made the effort to attach LN wallets and thereby maximise their use of and support for the LN?
There are a number content providers who write a lot about LN development and potential who 'virtue signal' that they are 'living on the Bitcoin Standard' but who have never bothered to attach both sending and receiving LN wallets. I see that as hypocrisy and do not want to spend my sats on them.
Showing attached wallets verifies to content consumers that a content provider is NOT just virtue signalling but is walking the talk.
I'm going to zag and say most of the stackers other than @Solomonsatoshi are the real problem. He's putting his real money where his stupid preferences are. If everyone else were doing the same, we wouldn't even notice his stupid campaign.
Also, it's a nice stress test for the site. I'm sure someday we'll encounter a worse bad actor and the site needs to continue functioning for us while it's under assault.