pull down to refresh

183 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 20h
I'm sure this all went through each of our individual minds as "what can possibly go wrong" when the move happened and we all fell into the trap of gaslighting ourselves that this would not happen.
It happened. Sovereignty is a thing.
reply
1000 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 19h
we were all witness to it, sn has a long memory.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 7h
The abuse of the term gaslighting needs to stop. It's getting as bad as the use of the word ironic.
reply
75 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 7h
Ironically i agree. sorry couldn't help myself.
reply
3000 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 6h
Eh, I'm not proud of my comment. Glad you took it well. I need breakfast I think.
reply
73 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 6h
Coffee is on me ❤️
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6h
Thanks, you didn't have to do that :)
Move over to SN?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 17h
Honestly they be better off getting a territory on SN. Given enough time they could run their own instance of it too.
reply
Best solution
reply
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @sime 11h
Academic mailing lists have traditionally always been on mailing lists.
But a fun thought experiment.
reply
Nostr?
reply
270 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 17h
Strong NACK on nostr. It's a badly designed, centralized, protocol that needs a significant redesign to be usable. While off topic for this mailing list, some of its many issues include:
  • Reliance on single-key, cryptography that often results in people having their keys compromised. This is a serious problem in the context of bitcoin-dev, where faked messages published could easily have market-moving results.
  • Inability to mirror relays: since nostr deliberately ignores the lessons of blockchains, there is no way to be sure that you have a complete set of messages from a given person, for a given topic, etc.
  • Highly centralized design: since mirroring relays isn't reliable, in reality nostr operates in a highly centralized fashion, dependent on a tiny number of relays that can't be easily replaced if taken down.
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 13h
This has now been reversed, and the mailing list has been restored: https://x.com/kanzure/status/1907622313547182541
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 15h
It should be fixed now.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 16h
I mean, come on.... What did they expect?
Maybe time for nostr or perhaps a SN territory?
reply
I zapped 2,370 CCs to this post, which I think might be a bug of some kind. I did try to zap 30 sats to it, and you can see that it failed and retried multiple times until finally succeeding. But somehow it also made me spend 2,370 CCs (my entire CC balance) on it.
I'm pretty sure it's not user error, because zapping that much would have required me to long-press and enter 2,370 into the field, which I'm 100% sure I didn't do.
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 5h
Leading hypothesis is that saunter's attached wallet times out slowly, and because we have network error retry logic on the client, we retry as it times out, then those retries time out, which triggers the retry again, and so on.
I've disabled the retry logic on the client for anything that costs money. We are currently trying to reproduce to confirm this is the exact issue.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 4h
I'll refund all zappers on this item. Looks like saunter's wallet triggered the bug perfectly well for nearly everyone that zapped it. Me most of all.
reply
I think you refunded me more than what was lost. I got a 9,000 refund but only lost 2,370 to this bug.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 4h
It hit you the most because you had the most CCs I guess
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 7h
This bug affected me too. Looking into it.
reply
14 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsMoro 20h
hopefully it gets cleared up, but there must be a better solution long term.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 7h
That didn’t take long. I thought that was an odd choice.
reply