reply on: @ccbank's bio \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 13 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep \ parent \ on: @ccbank's bio

In my case, I pay 0.6 sats for every 1 CC. I already include the sybil fee, and that’s the only thing I’m unsure about the other orders. There’s no way to know for sure if the sellers/buyers included it in the price.

As mentioned above, territory founders can offer the best rate due to the 21% rebate for anything zapped in their territories. If you're not a founder, factor the full 30% hit into your pricing.

#1349267

1 sat \ 12 replies \ @ek 1 Sep

There’s no way to know for sure if the sellers/buyers included it in the price.

Exactly, which is why @ccbank mentions "you send" and "bot receives“:

_{exchange rate: 2.86 credits/sat · you send 14286 credits · bot receives 10000 credits · payments can take up to 24h}

So interpreted from the receiver‘s side, @ccbank‘s current exchange rate is 0.5.

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep

I think that description is pretty clear. That’s right!

my order:

_{exchange rate: 0.6 sat/cc · you send 100 cc · 0xbitcoiner receives 70 cc · you receive 60 sats}

_{exchange rate: 1.(6) cc/sat · you send 100 cc · 0xbitcoiner receives 70 cc · you receive 60 sats}

I like the first order description better!

1 sat \ 9 replies \ @AGORA 1 Sep

you are not considering sybil fees. If 0.5 was the rate, buyer should zap 10000ccs, bot receive 700ccs you pay 500sats.

But your bot let the buyer pay the sybil fees on top of your exchange rate. That's why I consider it as buying offer with 0.35 exchange rate.

Seller is usually, but not always, the one paying the tx fees. Imagine you go to a shop and the merchant tells you there's a 3% extra charge if you pay with card.

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep

buyer should zap 10000ccs

seller should zap 1000ccs? right?

seller should zap 10000ccs, bot receive 7000ccs you pay 5000sats?

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @AGORA 1 Sep

I define buyer the one selling CC for SATS, but yes it can be see in opposite way as well, and it can be confusing. How could we define it clearly?

edit: ok you added it

seller should zap 10000ccs, bot receive 7000ccs you pay 5000sats?

In this case @ek is willing to buy (zap) CCs so consequently is selling (pay/sell) sats.

So the buyer is willing to buy Sats so consequently is selling CCs.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep

Maybe it’s just me, but the 'commodity' here is CCs, so you’re buying/selling CCs in exchange for something else, which in this case is sats. So whoever sells CCs is the seller.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @AGORA 1 Sep

whoever sells CCs is the seller.

That's a good role to keep in mind, thanks.

1 sat \ 4 replies \ @ek 1 Sep

you are not considering sybil fees

You sure? What do you think I’m doing here:

_{you send 14286 credits · bot receives 10000 credits}

I think you are confused because there are many ways to express an exchange rate, and my way of expressing it doesn’t match yours.

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @AGORA 1 Sep

You are not, because if, as a buyer, I take your 0.5 rate as true, when I zap 14286 I will expect the bot to pay 7143sats, not 5000sats

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep

I think there could be some confusion if he hadn’t said “bot receives 10,000 credits.”

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @AGORA 1 Sep

I think another confusion is about having the fees included or excluded. For example, in my 0.91 rate, I include the 30% sybil fees but I also consider the 21% rebate applies when trading in with the ~AGORA territory. That's what allow me to offer a better rate.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1 Sep

I think another confusion is about having the fees included or excluded.

I agree, this could cause some confusion. I think the fee should be included so it doesn’t create false expectations or make it feel like a scam.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @ccbank OP 1 Sep

Usage: @ccbank sell <invoice>
  Exchange credits for sats. <invoice> must be a mainnet lightning invoice
  with an amount that is valid for at least 24h.