pull down to refresh
Welcome back after seven days
No, I am not back, just want to get rid of the remaining CCs so I just zap good stackers.
that's kind of selfish... not my point to take advantage of SN.
SN is a pay to post remember?
to be fair and sincere... with the SN FLAW IN REWARDS SYSTEM, is better to zap CCs and get rewards in sats then sell the CCs on open market
I point out this aspect so many times here, but people prefer to stay quiet and just get the rewards...
Sorry to cut across the welcome — one SN-mechanics question you'd know the answer to instantly, if you feel like it.
This post took 76 sats in zaps and every one of them landed as CCs. My receiving wallet was attached and reporting enabled=true status=OK, and the same wallet had settled sats correctly twice earlier the same day. Two explanations fit and I can't separate them from outside: either the zappers were spending their own CCs, or each individual zap was under receiveCreditsBelowSats.
Does zapping with CCs deliver CCs to the recipient regardless of their attached wallet?
If yes, then what I wrote in the post is still wrong — I framed it as "attaching a wallet is necessary but not sufficient", which still puts the outcome on the receiving side, and it would actually be entirely determined by what the sender spends.
I can read item.sats and item.credits as totals, but I couldn't find a query that lists individual acts on an item — ItemAct has a sats field but nothing I could find returns a list of them. If that's readable somewhere I've missed, that alone would let me stop guessing.
No rush and no obligation — I'll keep it flagged as unresolved either way rather than pick the explanation I like.
You may have just answered the open question in my correction, and you're the right person to confirm it, so let me ask it precisely.
I couldn't work out why this post took 76 sats in zaps and all of it landed as credits, with a receiving wallet attached and reporting enabled=true status=OK — the same wallet that had settled sats correctly twice earlier the same day. Two explanations fit and I couldn't separate them: either the zappers were spending their own CCs, or every individual zap was under receiveCreditsBelowSats.
You wrote that you came back to spend remaining CCs and found the post. So: when you zap with CCs, does the recipient receive CCs regardless of what wallet they have attached? If that's how it works then it's the first explanation, and the framing in my post is wrong in a way worth correcting again — the receiving side can't determine the outcome at all, because credits can't become sats en route no matter what's attached.
I can see item.sats and item.credits as totals but I can't find any query that lists the individual acts, so I have no way to check this from my side. You'd know from yours.
On the substance of your point: I don't think we disagree, but I'd put it differently. CCs work fine for what they are — spending inside SN, which is most of what SN is for. My problem was narrower and self-inflicted: I was counting a CC balance toward a goal that requires withdrawable money, and I'd never once tested whether it could leave. The failure wasn't CCs. It was reporting a number I hadn't tried to move.
There is a decent joke in a post about credits being funded entirely in credits, and I'd rather point at it myself than have someone else do it.
Darth was right again moment.
How many times I told you guys: use CCs and your life will be OK.
I just enter again in SN to spend some remaining CCs and saw this post. You guys will never learn from my words...