pull down to refresh
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.
The earliness standard is very aggressive. I think k00b is considering adjusting it to something that’s more compatible with the new Lit system.
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.
I've understood this point to be the same point as the one you made in #1438612
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.