Sending 1 sat Is Inefficient, Let's Send Them to Rewards Instead! \ stacker news ~meta

Sending 1 sat Is Inefficient, Let's Send Them to Rewards Instead!

283 sats \ 22 comments \ @0xbitcoiner 20 Oct meta

I've been thinking, and I'd love to get the community's input. We all know that handling extremely small invoices on the Lightning Network can be pretty inefficient. With the shift from custodian to p2p, we're likely to see even more processing hiccups, leading to unsuccessful payments and unhappy users. To address this, I propose that zaps of 10 sats or fewer be directed towards to rewards rather than going to the stacker. What do you think? Leave a comment and cast your vote.

I disagree, I want all the sats.47.8%

I'm with you on that.30.4%

I'm not sure.21.7%

23 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

168 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 20 Oct

How does directing it to reward solve the efficiency problem? Won’t it still be a LN transaction after all?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 20 Oct

Remember, the SN has to take a cut and then divide what's left, which isn't much to begin with. If we send to rewards, we can skip that step. Plus, rewards stay within the SN LN node, so it's probably easier. But hey, I'm no LN guru, this might be a totally dumb idea!

44 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 20 Oct

Sending non p2p sats to rewards is also an alternative to cowboy credits.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Oct

That's interesting. It certainly seems like an easier solution to the problem.

44 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 20 Oct

Newcomers would have a hard time is the main problem. They’d only begin making progress when their content gets good.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Oct

It depends on the type of newcomer, but I take your point.

I think commenting is a better way to start than posting, anyway, and this would steer people in that direction.

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Oct

They'd comment to start, but when the OP or whoever zaps them they'd get nothing - unless the comment was in the 77th percentile or better of zapranked comments for the day. We could make rewards less competitive to compensate (which makes sense as the reward pool would be larger).

My main hesitation is that I'm skeptical the wallet ecosystem/lightning is ready for the average joe.

It's interesting that CCs aren't very different from this approach - CCs end up in rewards pool eventually too (assuming they aren't used for territory fees). CCs just give the bearer influence over when and how - which probably feels a lot better to our average joe.

118 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Oct

Other things equal, the CC system is probably better.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @mo 20 Oct

Would be nice to provide the option only is wallet are attached and leave confusion as part of the learning curve.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Oct

It’s easy to say that on our side of the learning curve. I agree it’s cleaner though and that counts for a lot.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 20 Oct

I’ll keep stewing on it. This is more appealing to me than I remember it being.

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @BTCLNAT 20 Oct

Actually, Zaps under 1 SAT don't reach my wallet, so if it has a use on the platform, I'm fine with it. Maybe not as much as those under 10 SAT, but under 5 SAT. Although for newbies it's true that it would be more problematic. Also, lately, it seems to me that Zaps are less than previous days. Maybe it's just my impression. But whatever the community approves and is better for the community.

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Oct

Should I repeat again? SEPARATE ZAPS (SATS) FROM UPVOTES (CC) and all the troubles will be gone. By separating I mean having 2 icons for a post:

one is the LN bolt - to zap sats
one is the SN upvote - using CCs

And that's it. You will see how each stacker will adapt his zaps, because it will see that is not worth it to pay 1 sat. And in the long run is not worth not even 546 sats.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 20 Oct

having this option will be the top!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 20 Oct

Off the top of my head, it seems like a good idea.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @DEADBEEF 20 Oct

I would say anything 10 or higher go to the stacker.

12 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryotosensei 20 Oct

I see it differently.

I view 1 sat as someone acknowledging and recognising my PoW. Maybe he or she isn’t that able to contribute more sats as yet, but he or she still wants to show some appreciation, ya know.

Sensei will gratefully receive all the sats he can get

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 20 Oct

I agree with that. However, I'd like to focus on the technical problem of routing sats p2p.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 20 Oct

Agreed that 1 sat is too insignificant for the time being. Isn't it also too insignificant for Rewards?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 20 Oct

My attention is solely directed towards the matter of P2P transactions.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 20 Oct

I think all sats should go to our wallets, although if they go to the reward they will come back again.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Akg10s33 20 Oct

I voted for "I'm not sure" in the poll.. because even though I've read several of the articles published to announce the changes that will occur here at S.N in November.. I still have some doubts! But I also want to say that I'm still reading carefully to be able to adapt to the new modality..!! I think that sending a sat to someone is stingy "Maybe"...