48 sats \ 12 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Aug \ parent \ on: SN release: random zap amounts, webln attached wallet meta
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.
write
preview
163 sats \ 5 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 3 Aug
Well now I feel bad for clearly not going through turbo zapping with enough detail for this change
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
It's fun discovering unexpected consequences.
reply
65 sats \ 3 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 3 Aug
No doubt, definitely part of the fun!
reply
411 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 4 Aug
Deployed with ranges that don't intersect, e.g. 1-21,22-210,211-2100
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Aug
Looking good
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 4 Aug
Thank you 🙏
reply
28 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
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
27 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Aug
Either that or make sure the ranges don't intersect. Rather than: 1-21,10-210,100-2100. Do: 1-21,22-210,211-2100.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
That's neat.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 3 Aug
Or maybe just scaling the lower bound: 1-21,10-31,100-121,1000-1021
Or scaling the lower bound faster (still preventing overlap): 1-21,22-100,101-210,1000-2100
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 3 Aug
If I understand the second one, there should be a 211-1000. That seems fun, too. The first option seems lame.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 4 Aug
Yeah, I messed that one up. The case where the upper bound is larger than 10x the lower bound is weird.
I like the randomness increasing slightly slower though.
reply