192 sats \ 20 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 3 Aug \ parent \ on: SN release: random zap amounts, webln attached wallet meta
IIRC it uses a random value in the range as the base before scaling it for turbo tipping, but I could be misremembering.
Edit: I think I didn’t do anything specific for turbo tipping, I just changed how the “base zap” is calculated to use a random value in range if that’s configured, else using your default zap value. From there, it should just follow the existing turbo tipping behavior
I'll keep playing around with it, but something's acting funny. I double zapped you just now and it only did 27 sats. At minimum, you should have gotten 210, if I understand how it's supposed to work. It's especially odd that the second zap was only 5 sats, since that's outside the range I set.
reply
I wonder if there’s some delay in determining the “last” zap for turbo tipping. Also yea, being outside the range altogether does not make any sense
reply
Are you also using zap undos?
reply
No, I don't like the zapping lag. It slows down my SN'ing.
reply
Fair enough! I use it because I often fat finger zap things I didn’t mean to zap lol
reply
The problem is the turbo zapping loop.
If the range is 1-100, and the first random zap is 1 sat, and the next random value chosen is 2 sats, we don’t multiply by 10 because that loop only executes if zapN-1 >= zapN.
I’ll patch in a second.
reply
This is more tricky than it seems because the range grows exponentially with the bounds. And, if the upper bound starts as more than a power of 10 greater than the lower bound, the lower bound of the next zap range LBN+1 will be exponentially less than upper bound of the current range UBN (as N grows) which is extra counterintuitive.
reply
Well now I feel bad for clearly not going through turbo zapping with enough detail for this change
reply
It's fun discovering unexpected consequences.
reply
No doubt, definitely part of the fun!
reply
It's always fun when seemingly simple problems turn out to be a bit thorny.
If people want to get really wild, you could only scale the upper bound.
reply
reply
That's neat.
reply
reply
If I understand the second one, there should be a 211-1000. That seems fun, too. The first option seems lame.
Ah!
reply