pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 12 replies \ @k00b 11h \ parent \ on: How do i know that 'social media' accounts and posts... aren't mostly Bots? lightning
Not enough times apparently. We need to make the explanation part of the experience.
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...
reply
I didn't know they didn't have the ability to receive those sats, no attached wallet for example.
We intend to allow you to see what kind of abilities people have. It's just non-trivial and we have a lot of energetic misconceptions to correct in our communication of this stuff.
'takes their cut'
We take no cut of zaps. SN ONLY makes money from territory founders paying for their territory. Otherwise all sats and CCs on SN end up in the rewards pool or as territory revenue.
reply
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.
reply
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?
reply
No, that's money transmission. If we allow you to send CCs that others receive as sats (money), those CCs are custodial bitcoin (money) that we are just calling CCs temporarily. Reward sats and territory revenue is OUR money that we are choosing to pay to people of OUR choosing. Your scenario describes customers storing CCs with us that are treated like money (except in name). Money transmission: taking custody of money from person A, then sending the money to person B on person A's behalf.
For the sake of understanding the decisions made here: imagine I've had lots of legal counsel, 18 months to think about the decisions involved, I'm at least average intelligence, and I have every motive to have you all receive real sats.
reply
I understand where you guys are coming from.
Don't get me wrong, I love Stacker News and it is vastly better than so many other platforms on the internet. And I have left Reddit and Twatter... because in the future the trajectory is proof-of-work and Pay-to-Post validation for the entire internet -otherwise it will be swarmed with Bots, Spam, and AI manipulation even worse than it already is.
The article wasn't supposed to put Stacker News in the 'past tense' category (not at all). Having said that, please don't be surprised when some users are critical (super testnet being one of them?) about the new CCs instead of Sats.
In the long run, I hope Mr Trump as disruptive as he is gets wooed by the deep-pocketed 'crypto' industry and relaxes the money-transmitter-rules long enough for places like Stacker News. He seems to really like lobbyists if/when Bitcoiner/Crypto people make enough noise... and he likes the 'stocks to go up' too in the process.