pull down to refresh
I think zaps under 30 sats via coinos aren’t going through and are getting converted to cowboy credits. k00b mentioned something about the default fee being set at 22 sats. Maybe @adam_coinos_io can look into for us.
50 sats \ 22 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 22h \ parent \ on: NFL Weekly Pick 'em- Week 18 Stacker_Sports
40 sats 💪
That’s what it is set at. It never charges that but if that is the default fee anything lower will not go through.
Even if the recipient wants CCs, you don't want them to have them?
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.
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.
One thing I would say is while CC are not ideal you can use them to pay for your posts while everyone finishes up connecting wallets for p2p. Essentially in my mind I'm stacking some free posts and comments
No. I think it is set through coinos for their channel with SN. I am sure it will get sorted in the coming days.
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?
I would like to submit that @Natalia is our favorite Bitcoin nomad.
You've got me thinking about how people always adopt current technologies as metaphors for our psyches. Presumably, that's because it's too hard to think about directly.
When you're not getting what you need from a relationship, is that because you have insufficient inbound liquidity (standoffishness, maybe) or does the other person have insufficient outbound liquidity (withholding) or maybe their channel fee is too high or yours is?
How do you parse those?
Is it helpful being able to list out the options in this way?
I look forward to all the armchair amateur psychologizing using bitcoin analogies in the years ahead.
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?
@k00b @ek :)