pull down to refresh
108 sats \ 18 replies \ @k00b 8h \ parent \ on: How do i know that 'social media' accounts and posts... aren't mostly Bots? lightning
CCs are derived from sats.
They are created from sats. By the same logic the custodial sats you received before could be said to have been created out of thin air.
When CCs are used they go into the rewards pool and territory revenue where 1 CC becomes 1 sat again.
It's maybe not your fault (as other people have exhibited this thinking too), but there's some double think here where somehow custodial bitcoin is "real" that you trust us to be honest about, yet you're certain we're doing something that "dilutes pow" with CCs.
We have no motive to dilute pow unless you think we introduced this kind of pow accidentally.
The most you can make of a murky premise is a murky conclusion.
The most you can make of a murky premise is a murky conclusion.
What does this remind me of ...
On two occasions I have been asked, —“Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Good explanation. I wonder how many times you have explained what CCs are, LOL.
reply
Not enough times apparently. We need to make the explanation part of the experience.
reply
Yeah, but I feel sad when some users leave after CC was introduced, but I'm happy that we have more new ones joining. I have a suggestion: you can add information about CCs on @saloon or make a permanently pinned post. I hate when someone says CCs are shitcoins.
reply
reply
When someone 'has' CCs... and 'sends' them to another user shouldn't that user actually receive sats? Not the CCs?
reply
I have a restaurant near my area with a small staff, so they set up a token system. You give them money, buy tokens, and then go fuck around enjoying and eating whatever you want until you run out. If you have any tokens left, you can give them to your friends or use them next time, but you never get money back for them because you bought so many, knowing you'd return. Something SN has is similar, but consider @k00b a good manager who still keeps things pretty light. Try to understand why they’ve done this.
reply
I understand why they've done it.
I'm just saying it's... a Stacker News Token which can be only used at Stacker News.
It's like saying... hey I like the post or content someone created while sitting a Chuck-e-Cheese so I'm going to send them REAL sats for their content. Great.
Now oh wait... I didn't know they didn't have the ability to receive those sats, no attached wallet for example.
So they are sent the chuck-e-cheese tokens, without me knowing, which they can ultimately only use at chuck-e-cheese.
Granted, chuck-e-cheese always 'takes their cut' maybe 30% regardless of whether the poster can receive tokens or Sats to begin with...
But that poster receives the chuck-e-cheese tokens instead and let's say they 'stack' them? Can they later, if they finally attach a receiving wallet, withdraw those tokens as sats they can spend anywhere?
No.
Stacker News used to be Sats-Only. Now it's "Sats-Only".... except when we use chuck-e-cheese tokens too...
No, that's money transmission. CCs exist because we can't custodially assist you transferring money to each other. If you want to send sats, attach a sending wallet and we will prioritize sending sats from it, and reserve your CCs when paying SN for stuff or when the receiver doesn't have a receiving wallet attached.
reply
But no one really gets this kind of explanation, no matter how much you try. I only came up with this over time, and eventually, it’ll become easier for everyone to understand. But I don’t want any user to leave just because they didn’t understand CCs. You have no idea how much I miss @Rsync25. I now have to spend some time keeping myself updated.
But if the "CCs" are custodially held by the platform... And then they are 'sent' to another user, shouldn't that user receive actual sats?
The CCs aren't being sent. The Sats are. But the sats that would be 'sent' in that case aren't the same sats as being sent by the original user - they are sending CCs for all they know NOT sats...
Like hey I have 100 CCs 'on' Stacker News. I zap someone but i don't have a wallet 'attached'. So they should receive 100 CCs as Sats right? The sats "for the user" were never custodied by Stacker News. The CCs were only used... because someone never had a sending/receiving wallet attached.
At least, that's the logical thing?
I always withdrew the 'custodial' sats I received. I withdrew them... and frequently zapped other users with those same sats.
So you're saying that... when I used 'cowboy credits' to send to another user (i zapped their post 100 CC) then they don't receive those very same cowboy credits?
Or they only receive part of them, and the 'rest' go into the 'general fund' for SN participants to receive in the form of sats?
reply
From this post where I go into detail:
Cowboy credits ARE rapidly decaying into reward sats and territory revenue every time they're spent - they have a half life of two zaps when zapped (only 70% of a CC survives each zap), and decay immediately into reward sats and territory revenue when spent on posts, comments, boosts, donations, or poll votes
30% of zaps go to reward sats and territory revenue as a sybil fee (more pow, proof of sacrifice stuff to make sure zaps are not bot'd either). 100% of the cost of posts, comments, boosts, donations, or poll votes go to reward sats and territory revenue.
reply