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.
Even if the recipient wants CCs, you don't want them to have them?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Good point, we suck at the documentation thing.
Yea it's the bane of my existence as well as a dev, but it always pays!
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
#523435
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.
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).
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.
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.
I'm looking forward to paying my territory fees with cowboy credits
“> 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 ?
They can post and comment and zap using CCs.
Yeah, that's the point.
Cui bono?
QEPD
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?
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.
Irrespective of the original post, it sounds like the CCs->sats that you saw is a bug. I'll look into it.
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
If the receiver got sats, it looks like we're updating the local cache wrong. Thanks
👌
Replicated just now
I will pay up to 1 million Sats for 2 million buffalo chips
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
Any way to accept all sats/zaps, but auto donate all Cowboy Credits to the rewards pools?
Not currently