pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 42m \ parent \ on: SN release: drop territory costs, bug fixes meta
This? #1665
What about it?
It looks like we fixed a bug unarchiving territories on October 20th, about a month after you probably reported the bug (you created ~Stacker_Stocks around then). I'm sorry we forgot that you reported it. It's easy to miss bug reports and/or correlations between bug reports and their fixes sometimes.
I can manually give you the result of an unarchive, once you clarify what you'd like done.
No.
The legal issues here revolve around custody, specifically custody of funds while they're in transit from person A to person B. SN will still run nodes. SN can still be paid in sats.
The ONLY thing changing is that we can't allow you to zap sats that we're holding for you. Everything else is just a consequence of that.
I think people aren't zapping as heavily as before but that could also be due to the run up in bitcoin price
It could also be that a lot of the zaps were self-zaps ... unless you're talking about the zaps you're receiving of course.
Santa delivered this year. :)
agency is culpability
This stung. I forgot, if I ever knew, that the cringe potential I carry around is the result of agency pursuits.
I’ve long known that people who are capable of great kindness also tend to be capable of great cruelty, because both extremes are often animated by the same crazed impulsivity.
I hadn't thought of kindness as impulsive. It's more consciously green lit, for me with a why-not, but it tends to be pretty risky too. The risk of diminishing myself is a big part of what I enjoy about being kind.
We want more territories (especially when we build what's required to support them). We just want fewer people unhappy with territories, and given we've been forced to neglect them, people are more likely to be unhappy with them as-is. Reducing the cost is mostly aimed at increasing the benefit to existing territory owners.
That will remain. It's a pain to communicate (we get people who have been stackers forever thinking it's our "business model," and new stackers thinking it's a bug) but the higher it is the more honest zaps are, and if zaps are a big deal, honest zaps are a bigger one.
they will blindly drink the kool-aid on any other topics if it's delivered by somebody who is pro-Bitcoin
I see the inverse more. If a person is anti-bitcoin, too broadly pro-crypto, or merely absentmindedly too broadly pro-crypto, every thought they hold is considered invalid. I see this with bitcoin founders where I'll be like "this person has a lot of good advice for founders" or "this person built the fiat version of your business, I'd study them" and the reaction will be "they said that anti-bitcoin thing" or "they supported XYZ shitcoin."
People have a hard time grading others by their parts.
Also, thanks for holding our feet to the fire. We lost some of that energy over the last year.
- go here: https://archive.is/
- put in url
- hit
save
no wall: https://archive.is/JPXa8
But unlike expenses at federal agencies such as the State Department or the Pentagon, none of the Fed’s spending comes out of taxes paid by Americans. The central bank is a decentralized institution that funds itself rather than relying on appropriations by Congress to operate. In fact, it often sends money to the U.S. Treasury.
They fund themselves.
Cumulative losses are added to a “deferred liability” on the Fed’s balance sheet, which it must pay down to zero before beginning to send money to the Treasury again. As of last week, that balance was about $214 billion. The net loss doesn’t affect the Fed’s ability to operate: It can create new money out of thin air.
They create money out of thin air.