Any way to disable sending Cowboy Credits entirely? \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

Any way to disable sending Cowboy Credits entirely?

581 sats \ 30 comments \ @CheezeGrater 4 Jan meta

Sats are worth a lot more than Cowboy Credits, and I would prefer when clicking the zap button, if my sat payment fails, to not default to CCs.

Don't get me wrong, I love SN, but defaulting to sending the payment to yourselves (real money), when I intended to send that money to someone else, and then giving that person CCs (not money) and taking the money feels very off.

view all related items

436 sats \ 18 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

Even if the recipient wants CCs, you don't want them to have them?

defaulting to sending the payment to yourselves (real money), when I intended to send that money to someone else, and then giving that person CCs (not money) and taking the money feels very off.

We aren't doing this for our own benefit. Many stackers won't run nodes or connect to external services, and even for those that do, it will be unreliable or inefficient to route real sats in some cases. CCs are there so that someone creating value gets something when their lightning situation is insufficient, and then they can use those CCs to earn to real bitcoin.

You know what feels off to me? The level of cynicism I'm seeing around this change. All CCs, except for when territory founders use them to pay their territory fees, end up back in the rewards pool or territory revenue and are paid out as real sats to stackers.

281 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 4 Jan

I am more surprised how SOFT some Stackers are being right now.

It’s pretty straight forward in the settings. After that attach a wallet and stack sats.

169 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 4 Jan

People are always cynical about change. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

It will all resolve itself in the coming days and weeks.

You guys worked your asses off and achieved your goal.

I am sure there will be some turnover as there was when territories launched. New people who join will just be initiated into the new paradigm.

84 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

You're right. I just overestimated the number of people that understood the change. I must've thought all the outrage had been discharged in the pinned posts.

I was telling ek that the outrage feels qualitatively different. He disagreed. To my side, a change that presupposes customer action should result in more outrage relative to a change that's more superficial (like territories).

145 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Jan

You're right. I just overestimated the number of people that understood the change.

Speaking as a teacher, I've found that you can tell someone something even 5 times and they still won't remember it. You can even ask them, "Do you understand?" And they'll say yes, but a week later they already forgot.

A friend of mine who worked as a hospital CEO said that if he really wants a communication to stick, he needs to make the announcement at least 7 times.

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 4 Jan

Definitely. We always made sure we were on good standing with a customer before asking them to change something on their end whether it was scheduling scope or work or price etc.

176 sats \ 6 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

To me it's about transparency and clarity, I don't doubt SNs intentions. The mechanics around zaps are very different now, without the UI having changed to the same extent.

To stackers living in the CC verse, who mainly used SN as pay to post, and then used the sats they earned to post again, things haven't changed much.

From the perspective of a stacker who mostly zaps without posting, they now have less control on who actually gets the sats they put into SN. This will get better as more stackers link wallets, and payments route better, but I'd like to have the final say on who gets my sats ya know?

22 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

Thanks for clarifying!

We have a lot to do to make the current thing work better, there are already so many combinations of configurations, but I will give you that level of control as soon as I can.

It's made the way it is because that's what we expect the average/default person to want. As we learn about the exceptions we'll accommodate them.

201 sats \ 4 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

Absolutely! I think it's great that so many people are learning how to do their own nodes and wallets now.

I expected it to be rocky for a while, keep up the good work.

P.S. Maybe having a static page where all of the rules regarding where sats go are explained will help appease the cynics?

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

Good point, we suck at the documentation thing.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

Yea it's the bane of my existence as well as a dev, but it always pays!

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mo 4 Jan

there was a page explaining it all, can you help me find it? I ask for it yesterday too #835806 maybe you miss it as I did just before the SNL

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

#523435

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 4 Jan

I'm looking forward to paying my territory fees with cowboy credits

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Heisenbergbitcoin 4 Jan

“> and then they can use those CCs to earn to real bitcoin.” Hey @k00b , I am trying to understand this last sentence of yours. How can one earn SATS using the CCs ?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 4 Jan

They can post and comment and zap using CCs.

If they post, comment, and zap well according to SN's reward algorithm, SN will pay them sats as part of daily rewards.
If they attach a wallet, their posts and comments they created using CCs can earn real bitcoin from zaps (if the zapper has attached a wallet too)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sasasuina 5 Jan

Yeah, that's the point.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @random_ 4 Jan

We aren't doing this for our own benefit.

Cui bono?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

QEPD

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jon_Hodl 5 Jan

I will pay up to 1 million Sats for 2 million buffalo chips

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bief57 4 Jan

The best answer to all this cowboy credits stuff is from @flat24. I'm going to post this answer everywhere I can. I'll pass on the sats I got for sharing your answer. #836480

Here we see something similar to the real world, good money and bad money... obviously we can use the bad money (Cc) for expenses and small things, but we will look for storage priority for the good money (SATS).

In the case of SN, use your (Cc) for your comments, publication fees and some generic Zap. and the ***(SATS)***⚡ you will use them when something or someone really brings you value. and you will receive them when your work or comments bring value to another. and this other person makes you a real Zap ⚡. And at the company level, SN no longer handles third-party funds. Only some (Cc) that are something fictitious that only has value within the platform. At the regulatory level, they will no longer bother you for using bitcoin. Here, Bitcoin will circulate between individuals in a P2P way without the intervention or management of SN.

And on the other hand, I think that the use of (Cc) is good, because that will scare away the Assmillkers who only come here to collect SATS. without any real contribution.

I think that with this update we will now see more clearly the Philosophy of VxV

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 4 Jan

Any way to accept all sats/zaps, but auto donate all Cowboy Credits to the rewards pools?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

Not currently

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Jan

I thought if the zap fails, SN will take your CC and give the recipient CCs. Do they take your sats and give the recipient CCs?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

I zapped someone and saw their CCs go up, then a bit later it changed to sats. Not sure how this works under the hood but I'd like to prevent the scenario I mentioned.

I didn't have any CCs at the time so a sat payment was sent from my linked wallet.

If I have no CCs to zap, and I try to zap someone without a linked wallet, will SN will fund my account from my node and then send the CCs? Not sure, but I don't want that to happen.

81 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 4 Jan

Irrespective of the original post, it sounds like the CCs->sats that you saw is a bug. I'll look into it.

116 sats \ 2 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

Thanks!

Just to clarify, the "from me" value showed CCs and then a bit later showed sats.

It showed sats by the time I saw the transactions in RTL

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 4 Jan

If the receiver got sats, it looks like we're updating the local cache wrong. Thanks

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

👌

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CheezeGrater OP 4 Jan

Replicated just now