reply on: This Day in Stacker News: July 18th \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

107 sats \ 21 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Jul \ parent \ on: This Day in Stacker News: July 18th meta

I think most of the early users were his buddies, so it might have just been an easy way to zap some sats over for something else. Who knows?

My mind also went straight to money laundering or something like it. No judgement, of course.

65 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 18 Jul

This was before we took our Sybil fee so people were self-zapping a lot.

66 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

What was the benefit of self zapping back then? Did SN pay out daily rewards? and even if you did it couldn't be much.

116 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 18 Jul

Rewards weren't introduce until about a year in I think. A lot of it was "look what I can do, i've outsmarted k00b."

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 18 Jul

https://i.postimg.cc/Vk21Hn8F/darth-using-lightsaber.gif

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

And you were like ..

https://m.stacker.news/40371

53 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

The fees decision was due to self zapping?

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 18 Jul

Yes, that's the only reason we take a zap fee. It's probably still too low though tbh.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

10% as it stands is good enough, imo. You can increase it by 1 or two percent but increasing it by 100% or 200% won't be a great idea.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

Should we call it Zapperbation?

74 sats \ 10 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

No judgement but it's what it is! I smell it and only @spain might have answers! Nothing by him after June 2022. Has he left forever after such an impressive run!?

Also, at that time it was like $100. Not such a big amount to be thought about laundering or mixing!

66 sats \ 6 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

It was more than $100 at the time. Bitcoin was around 40k in July of 2021 but regardless not a significant amount which is why I think it was a test transaction.

63 sats \ 5 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

Yes, so @Undisciplined's allegations of laundering or mixing hence hereby get rejected!!

74 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Jul

I didn't say mixing. Don't saddle me with @grayruby's deranged conspiracy theories.

43 sats \ 2 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

Ahh! I'm sorry! I can't blame @grayruby he owns ~stacker_sports!

You just said

My mind also went straight to money laundering or something like it.

I thought 'something' has a hint to 'mixing'.

24 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Jul

It was more of a hint that I don't know exactly what I'm talking about.

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

I'm sorry again! 😉 Still can't blame @grayruby. Laundering is bigger crime than mixing.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

I stand by my wild idea until presented with an even wilder one.

34 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Jul

Maybe @k00b paid him off to leave so he could stay on top of the leaderboard. It'll take more than that to get me to leave, @k00b (but I'm open to the idea).

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

https://m.stacker.news/40368

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 18 Jul

Haha! Just suppose if @k00b pays me to stay on top of the LB. Currently, I would only need a 100k zap from him! 5 times less than that of @spain's!

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 18 Jul

I don't believe there were fees back then so if someone wanted to zap sats from one account they control to another account they control they could easily do that.