5 sats \ 18 replies \ @nemo 21 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
deleted by author
but I found that I ended up sinking a good 500 sats in each of those posts
now, do you remember my words?
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
Yes, I much appreciate the input.
Part of the plan with personalized feeds is that nuking is relative to the logged in stacker. Posts will only be seen as outlawed by people who trust the downzappers, but to people who don't they will still see the posts. So this is another thing to imagine as we troubleshoot.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Personalized feeds are not live. I’m still working on them. I have a conservative deadline of end of September.
Yes you will fully trust yourself. If you or people you trust downzap the item a lot, it will be outlawed … one thing I’m considering is also allows stacker to set the outlaw threshold for themselves
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
reply
If an item has upzaps, downzaps are subtracted from the upzaps - it's a tug of war, a war of trust and sats. So that's one possible explanation - other people upzapped it. Another is that when you downzapped before, other people had already downzapped it.
reply
deleted by author
reply
is there a difference if I downzap something with 100 sats at once, or if I downzap it twice with 50?
No difference. It works just like upzaps. We consider the entire zap amount as a whole and even end up using some basic algebra to do this.
that is why I started to wonder whether the unpaywall comment does not count towards the the upvote of those specific posts
Outlawing does not consider comments. Only upzaps and downzaps.
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
It could be a bug.
If it's not a bug, other reasons: If those 20 sats came from someone whom everyone trusts 2-3x more than you, it'd cost you >10k sats to outlaw it on your own. If the difference is even higher, it'd cost you >100k.
Also you're all gaining or losing trust everyday depending on what you're upzapping and downzapping. If you had an easier time outlawing before, it might be that you lost some trust.
reply
deleted by author
reply
I find what I perceive to be maybe potential anomalies, I speak up :)
I do genuinely appreciate the case study!
This is all ripe for overhaul once we have personalized feeds. It's certainly more opaque than it should be.
reply
deleted by author
reply