41 sats \ 27 replies \ @realBitcoinDog OP 9 Oct \ parent \ on: Darthcoin might be an OG Stacker, but I dont trust. I read FAQ. Is Darth WRONG?! meta
“No offense, but…”
Either @DarthCoin is right and @k00b has to update the FAQ, or his understanding of the SN algo is wrong!
The more sats you zap, the more votes it tallies.
Back when Darth joined, it didn't work this way. But for about 2 years now, it's worked this way.
reply
reply
reply
Ahh, that's how TheWildHustle was buttering his bread.
reply
IT’s SO EARLY!
That’s what @TheWildHustle says when he browses “recent” to butter his bread 🤣
reply
It was his lifestyle for a year. He would wait for bangers while warming his butter knife.
reply
You are contradicting yourself.
I can't find it right now the saloon comment, when I asked you precisely about this: what happen if I zap first 100 sats a post and then came back and zap again another amount.
Your answer was clear: it doesn't matter, only the first zap matter. All the rest are just more sats to OP.
reply
The more sats you zap, the more votes it tallies.
Doesn't seems so. As far I watched all the posts and comments, no matter how much sats you zap to an item, it shows the same as "voters" and rank to top posts.
If is as you say, you mislead me many times when I asked you how the amount of sats are influencing the ranking of a post zapped.
From FAQ:
Do Zaps Help Content Rank Higher? Yes. The ranking of an item is affected by: the amount a stacker zaps a post or comment the trust of the stacker making the zap the time elapsed since the creation of the item Zapping an item with more sats amplifies your trust, giving you more influence on an item's ranking. However, the relationship between sats contributed and a stacker's influence on item ranking is not linear, it's logarithmic. The effect a stacker's zap has on an item's ranking is trust*log10(total zap amount) where 10 sats = 1 vote, 100 sats = 2, 1000 sats = 3, and so on ... all values in between are valid as well. To make this feature sybil resistant, SN takes 30% of zaps and re-distributes them to territory founders and the SN community as part of the daily rewards.
So again, 100 sats are NOT 100 votes.
I stand my ground: no matter how many sats you zap, it will not influence more the ranking of a post.
reply
"voters" is not the same as "votes"
One voter can cast many votes.
reply
Again you are misleading in answers.
Just few weeks ago I asked you about how is influencing if I zap 100 sats and then came back and zap again 100 sats the same post.
You said, that it doesn't matter. It matters only the first zap.
I just made a test with your comment, zapping twice 1 sats. It says "from 0 stackers / 2 from me".
So where are the "voters" separately ?
reply
Here's the comment: #683684
You asked:
Not related to this debate, but came to my mind something and wanted to ask you about. If I zap a post, let's say I am the 1st one, with 100 sats. I also comment first. Then after a while, after I wait until more are coming to comment and zap, I zap again same post let's say 1000 sats. Then after a while again 2000 sats. Is this affecting the algo for the OP and for me ? I am just curious how this plays out. You know I am not interested in gainz...
I said:
For the OP, it's the same either way. For you, the late zaps are less eligible for rewards than your earlier ones.
You asked about zap timing, not sats, in a thread discussing rewards, not ranking. My answer to your question in that thread addresses the effect of zap timing on the reward "algo."
I might've misunderstood your question. You might've misunderstood my answer.
reply
I might've misunderstood your question. You might've misunderstood my answer.
maybe
reply
60% of the time using qualifiers like maybe makes you right 100% if the time! 💯💯
reply
Is this the algo? (from github)
SELECT id, row_number() OVER (ORDER BY ((GREATEST("weightedVotes", POWER("weightedVotes", 1.2)) + "weightedComments"/2) / POWER(GREATEST(3, EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (now_utc() - created_at))/3600), 1.3) + (boost/5000::float) / POWER(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (now_utc() - created_at))/3600+2, 2.6)) DESC NULLS LAST, id DESC) as rank FROM "Item" WHERE "parentId" IS NULL AND NOT bio AND "pinId" IS NULL AND "deletedAt" IS NULL AND "weightedVotes" > 0 ORDER BY ((GREATEST("weightedVotes", POWER("weightedVotes", 1.2)) + "weightedComments"/2) / POWER(GREATEST(3, EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (now_utc() - created_at))/3600), 1.3) + (boost/5000::float) / POWER(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (now_utc() - created_at))/3600+2, 2.6)) DESC NULLS LAST, id DESC LIMIT 2100;
reply
Thank you for sharing the actual code. This is the promise of FOSS SN. We don’t need to trust @k00b or risk misunderstanding an explanation from the FAQ. We can verify for ourselves! Which file had this snippet?
reply
Maybe it was this one?
stacker.news/prisma/migrations/20240228011144_user_values_view
/migration.sql
I can't remember what I searched on right now. If you search for "weightedvotes" you get lots of results.
Honestly, this gives a clue to what might be going on, but to really say positively I'm not sure this is good enough.
reply
Am I wrong? No, it’s the SN algo that’s wrong!😑
reply