401 sats \ 6 replies \ @birdeye21 22 Jun 2023 \ parent \ on: Is Swan Bitcoin about to go bankrupt bitcoin
Not here to take sides but
Looks like he's also pumping his anti-Swan posts artificially
poxohu has 0 trust. They are the big spender here but he had ZERO effect on ranking. I'm not sure what they intended but the only effect of the zap was sending the reward pool 9400 sats and the op the rest.
It was the other 14 people zapping this that sent it to the top.
reply
I already disclosed in another comment pumping a prior post. You're really reaching if you think I am using multiple wallets. 100k sats is exactly the opposite of what someone being sneaky would do.
I am broadly critical of bitcoin startups because of how important building tools that actually accelerate things is rather than squandering resources. I also criticize StackerNews for instance and VCs investing at $25m val, or synota or whatever Ln electric bill payments making absurd claims also getting a stupid valuation.
Like in the fiat world, stupid things outbid attention from smart things. If I were as accusatory as you, I might call you a Keynesian!
reply
@k00b this is a pretty easy thing to fix. Just charge a 5% rake on zaps and it basically eliminates all possible manipulation, plus gives you a real revenue model so you are not running a charity project.
reply
- We take 10% exactly for this reason
- Even if you're willing to lose an infinity of money, the effect of zapping is weighted by your trust ... and gaining trust requires hard and consistent work that's difficult even if you're earnest.
reply
Oh, I didn't know you take 10%, haha. Nice!
Can you explain the 2nd point more? You're saying there is a more complex algorithm that will weight more heavily zaps by certain accounts deemed as high status? Does that increase the Sybil resistance?
reply
Yes the effect of (2) is to increase sybil resistance by adding another "resistor."
reply