pull down to refresh

CCs undermine the whole idea of the website. CCs help generate spam and misinformation.

You can easily create new accounts, rack some CCs from a freebie comment, and use that to post content
that doesn't benefit the website.

The solution to spam (and other undesired content) is to have financial cost attached to it.

By allowing CCs, you undermine everyone else who is using sats on the website and the whole platform.

I sent you some CCs.

CCs exist so k00b doesn't go to prison. When the money transmitter laws change I am sure he will be happy to remove them for you.

reply

what i say doesn't imply that SN should custody, which is what i assume you're referring to. users should just need to add an address to post. sats can be allocated site-wide. there needs to be real cost attached to posting.

reply

Were you around when the site went non custodial and CCs were added. Very messy time. Transition was not easy, a lot of people left. CCs were a middle ground for SN to cover its ass while it built out the wallet infrastructure. It has improved a lot since then so they probably could be removed and everyone forced to attach a wallet but they are useful in a couple ways. Firstly sometimes zaps fail or wallets encounter issues. You can still use the site with CCs if this happens and secondly I think "you got some CCs you need to attach a wallet to get real sats" is a better incentive for new people than "hey I know you are new and just looking around but attach a wallet before you do anything".

reply

on zaps failing: the solution is not to introduce fake money. the solution is to fix real money (sats).

reply

So fix it. Make the perfect SN wallet.

reply

I use coinos wallet with near zero failed zaps.
If I can do it anyone can.
It is piss easy for anyone serious about Bitcoin.
The number of virtue signalling circle jerking big talk no walk lazy hypocrites on this platform seriously degrades the entire enterprise.

reply

i'm working on something else, so i won't do it. but someone might if they had to actually use sats.

it's like bitcoiners who refuse to use bitcoin because they hold. a similar idea.

reply

i hear you, but i think it undermines the site. i would prefer less users, but sats only.

just make it easier for people to add a wallet. have a guide or something.

if we use fiat (CCs), bitcoin is never going to win.

reply

Ah man, are there guides. It was a mess back then, and even the ones that worked kept failing; detaching.

Custodial (up to some max amount, whatever; prison risk is real), easy, simple.

Would have been a different SN trajectory if that'd been the route

reply

i don't want custodial. it's anti-bitcoin. trusted third-parties are security holes.

reply

this is a (daily attendance) forum with micropayments. We can stomach the tiny risk for the immense convenience. #1506425, #1524157

reply

Custodial wallet was definitely easier. I agree with that.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @398ja 14 Jul -2 sats
i would prefer less users, but sats only.

Sorry but this is delusional. No one builds a social media platform with such inverted preferences

Respectfully.

This.

reply
151 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 14 Jul

For the record, we want to remove CCs too. They aren't there because we want them to be there or out of some financial interest. We know they are detriment to the site. We've spent the last two years laying foundations that will allow us to remove them from the site.

They are there because without working payments SN does not function. Lightning payments on SN aren't a little gimmick. They aren't just like that other app you use but with zaps that don't really work. They are crazy integral to everything SN does. CCs are there to ensure things can remain costly, and be paid for, even if lightning payments are failing or folks don't have access to an always online lightning wallet.

I'm sorry it's not done yet.

reply

And yet there is little disincentive for those like @denlillaapan and @DarthCoin who refuse to attach LN wallets.

Only by increasing the ratio of attached wallets that the need for CCs can be reduced if not eliminated.

If those who have attached wallets received a higher proportion of the zaps on their posts the number of attached wallets could increase rapidly.

reply

No gun. No horse. But you're complain about CCs, the the the best suitable for when SN goes self-custodial.

reply

How do CCs help generate spam? Explain this.

reply

as someone pointed out above, it's first a freebie problem. i can create an unlimited number of accounts and post whatever.

but CCs create this weird dynamic where they compete with real money (sats). this makes this site no better than any other site on the internet that uses likes or whatnot.

i can get some CCs and then boost whatever nonsense i want to boost because they are worthless outside of this website. CCs are fiat.

reply

I suggest you give this another go, because that's about the worst conclusion. A CC is simply a failed to deliver sat, but since these sats cannot be custodied, they are converted and have to be spent on-site. The only fiat here is all the fiat maxis.

reply

a CC always comes from a real sat. So this isnt very accurate.

reply
70 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fenix 13 Jul

you are mixing a lot of things in a misunderstanding soup. CC are tokens, not free tokens because someone exchanged sats for it before, you can create a lot of fake nyms but CC are not free from the zaper, so you can spend it here only. Pay to post and to comment, if nobody gives you back you can’t do nothing here with your spam nyms.

faq section explains the whole thing very well.

reply
27 sats \ 14 replies \ @Kruw 13 Jul
You can easily create new accounts, rack some CCs from a freebie comment, and use that to post content that doesn't benefit the website.

If the comment earns CCs, doesn't that prove it's a valuable comment that benefits the website? Or is there some sort of exploit/bug?

The problem you are describing has nothing to do with CCs vs sats. Eliminating freebie posts is what you actually want.

reply

yes, freebie posts need to go. but CCs need to go as well.

otherwise you just shift the problem elsewhere. if you have CCs, you need to decide how CCs value with regard to sats.

i can pay with sats for my first non-freebie post, but then if i get CCs allocated somehow, i can abuse the system again, back to square 1. CCs are essentially fiat.

reply

No highly active user of the site cares about getting CCs. You just spend them onsite and they become sats in the rewards pool mixer. Only people who are here trying to farm sats care.

reply
Only people who are here trying to farm sats care.

Hm. Not sure about that...? I care, and I'm here to farm sats.

reply

What percentage of your zaps are cc's? I get very few.

reply

surprisingly few... maybe one of out every six-seven

reply

Those are me! (except for when I run out)

reply

My mental accounting is that they're 0.7-ish of a sat:

  • strictly worse than a sat bc it's trapped here and can only be spent here.
  • not worthless, since it pays for posts and the "zapping" gets you a slice of the (ever-shrinking) rewards pool — which does pay out in real sats
reply

i care more about spam. what is really necessary is to have a cost attached to posting.

there are three users on this website and i already see bots and spam, just like the rest of the internet.

reply

Bots and spammers don't tend to stick around too long because they don't get zaps.

reply

with freebies, i can create an unlimited number of accounts. the reason it's not being done is because there are 3 users on the website. but i already see spam posts here and it's very sad for me because it's the only website that feels like the old internet and i don't want it to fail.

reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fenix 13 Jul

you can hide freebies in settings, done

reply

this is bad because new posters might not know about that. imagine if everyone has that enabled. it should just not be a thing.

Tons, yeah. And compared to rest of the internet, this is costly and annoying.

Still, here are the bots.

(My impression is that they don't stay long, don't have much impact)

reply

yup, correct.

(Not specifically for these reasons, but yes: CCs are antithetical to bitcoin, SN should never have introduced them.)

reply
reply

I'm well aware, I was here.

Very messy time. Transition was not easy, a lot of people left. CCs were a middle ground for SN to cover its ass while it built out the wallet infrastructure. I

I understand it made sense at the time, k00b not going to prison etc. still bad move, still unnecessary confusion, still shitcoinery

reply

CC's are a response to federal, state, and maybe even international regulations.

k00b, ek, and others risk going to jail as unlicensed money transmitters without them.

reply

Darth amongst others are hateable stackers but let us remember that they are the Originals. They are immortals and we are just Satoshi minnows. There is nothing that we can ever do about it. The CCs are very good in my opinion. It doesn't allow me to spam since I only have a few.

reply

CCs are fine as a short-term workaround imo. The fact that it's CCs is generally hidden in the experience and when you connect your wallet correctly you don't even notice it. In practice what you highlight as an issue is not what I have observed. Sure, it would be nice if this works with just sats, but in my humble opinion there are other things that would be higher priority to do first.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 14 Jul -21 sats

Your lack of understanding of how SN works is disturbing

256 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 14 Jul -330 sats

Look at all the 'Libertarian freedom fighters' who cant be fucked to make the effort to attach and use send and receive wallets.
They circle jerk all day and night about their self sovereignty journey blah blah blah echo chamber virtue signalling fucking hypocrites.
@denlillaapan
@DarthCoin