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.
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 underreceiveCreditsBelowSats.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.satsanditem.creditsas 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.