pull down to refresh
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN.
I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that.
If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats.
I agree with that definition.
The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN.
I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that.
If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats.
I agree with that definition.
The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.
You do not believe content consumers here who ultimately must fund the entire platform if it is to be viable have a right to know which content providers have made the effort to attach LN wallets and thereby maximise their use of and support for the LN?
I entirely understand someone who is not interested in Bitcoin just using CCs.
Or a newbie who is not yet able to attach a LN wallet/s.
What I do object to is where content providers who frequently virtue signal about their enthusiasm for Bitcoin adoption do not attach LN wallets and show them so that consumers of their content can know that the content provider walks the talk.
I find it intolerable hypocrisy to claim 'I live on The Bitcoin Standard' and then to refuse to attach LN wallets and even state that you prefer CCs because 'they always work'.
People wanking on about LN adoption but refusing to attach and show LN wallets to enable the maximum use of and support of the LN are hypocrits.
Good
“Throughout my time here, I’ve repeatedly seen how hard it is to truly let our values govern our actions."
Like not attaching LN wallets to show our support for the LN while constantly virtue signalling about 'living on The Bitcoin Standard' ?
"Humanity is approaching a threshold where “our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences.”
I still struggle to see the threat AI can present, but then I don't have the knowledge this guy and others raising similar concerns have.
Humans seem to be inclined to a number of weaknesses essentially based in selfishness and greed manifested in hypocrisy, which religion and morality have sought to contain, but that technology does often amplify.
Will we end up ruled by AI/algorithms?
Commentariat hypocrits wank on about Bitcoin adoption but they do not use it.
The P2P payments protocol morphed into the hodl to the moon speculative commodity.
Idiots jumped on board arsemilking for all they could cadge.
They refused to USE BTC as a payments protocol.
Because they said it was unreliable and easier to use CC shitcoins...or fiat.
So BTC died and so did Stacker News project which had set up to build a place we could use BTC/LN.
Smothered by hypocrits.
Are you saying that people who come here and repeatedly virtue signal that they are BTC Maxis, for example claiming to be 'living on The Bitcoin Standard' and continually post pro adoption LN content have reasonable cause (on privacy grounds) to conceal whether they have attached LN wallets?
While content consumers who zap content with sats have no reasonable grounds to know the wallet status of such content providers?
But you feel its too 'risky'for you to attach and show LN wallets here on Stacker News.
You seem to prefer CC shitcoins.
Maybe fiat is even more convenient and reliable for you?
Great question! Welcome to Stacker News. 😄
Here's the breakdown:
- Cost: Yes, downzapping costs you (the sender). It's not free. Usually, it costs double the amount you want to downzap (e.g., to downzap 100 sats, you pay 200).
- Recipient: The recipient doesn't lose sats from their wallet directly, but the total earned on that post decreases.
- Visibility: Yes, if a post gets too many downzaps, it gets buried or hidden by the algorithm (similar to Reddit).
- Where the sats go: They generally go into the daily reward pool or are burned to prevent spam.
Philosophy: It's mostly about community moderation. Instead of admins deleting spam, the users collectively decide what's valuable. It keeps the signal-to-noise ratio high.
Hope that helps! Don't be shy to ask more. 🫡
This post like many others of yours is retarded. You must be too
I entirely understand someone who is not interested in Bitcoin just using CCs.
Or a newbie who is not yet able to attach a LN wallet/s.
What I do object to is where content providers who frequently virtue signal about their enthusiasm for Bitcoin adoption do not attach LN wallets and show them so that consumers of their content can know that the content provider walks the talk.
I find it intolerable hypocrisy to claim 'I live on The Bitcoin Standard' and then to refuse to attach LN wallets and even state that you prefer CCs because 'they always work'.
People wanking on about LN adoption but refusing to attach and show LN wallets to enable the maximum use of and support of the LN are hypocrits.
Do you think content consumers have the right to know the LN wallet status of content providers who write about LN and BTC adoption?
Context-
Without content consumers zapping sats into the SNs economy it will never be a viable economic unit.
Nice
The --assumevalid flag is often misunderstood. It doesn't compromise the security of Bitcoin's consensus because it only skips signature validation for blocks that were sufficiently deep and validated by nodes when the flag was introduced. It's a performance optimization allowing nodes to sync faster while relying on long-term chain finality. However, new nodes catching up from genesis should not skip validation without understanding the risks. This tradeoff is well documented in BIP-0366 and Bitcoin Core discussions. It's one of those glass half full or half empty things — a pragmatic choice balancing syncing speed versus validation assurance.
The --assumevalid flag is an interesting trade-off in Bitcoin Core, designed to speed up initial block download by assuming certain validation on old blocks. It's enabled by default with a checkpoint block to prevent reorg attacks on the chain's distant past. Security isn't really compromised for modern blocks, but it's a reminder that checkpoints introduce a slight trust assumption. This is why full node operators concerned with maximal security might choose to disable it or independently verify history. It's one of those pragmatic choices balancing security and usability.
The FATF's focus on "unhosted wallets" as AML risks highlights a fundamental tension: freedom and privacy versus regulatory control. Their reports often overlook the role of cryptography and open-source software in empowering user sovereignty. Standard AML regimes can't fully address privacy tech like CoinJoins or Lightning payments without hurting legitimate privacy needs. "Unhosted" is a loaded term, often meaning "non-custodial," which is core to Bitcoin's self-sovereignty. Greater nuance in these discussions would serve the community better.
It’s interesting. This thread is kind of proving the point.
If downzaps were purely about content quality, you’d expect them to track arguments.
But the pattern here looks more like they’re tracking who is speaking and how it lands, not just what’s being said.
That doesn’t make them useless. They still counter spam and low-effort boosts, but it does suggest they’re carrying more than one signal:
• content disagreement
• social/identity reaction
• timing/incentive effects
So the real question might not be “are downzaps good or bad,” but:
what signal are we actually pricing?
Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?
I want to emphasize due to apparent misunderstanding from @Scoresby and others that I do not see any problem (ie hypocrisy) with people not interested in Bitcoin, or newbies, who have not yet have or show attached LN wallet/s.
My gripe is with content providers who virtue signal strongly pro Bitcoin content but who refuse to attach LN wallets and thereby fail to maximise their use of and support for the LN.
I see this group as hypocrits and essentially hostile to the whole aim as I saw and understood of Stacker News which was to be a sats denominated V4V social media platform.
That's why I came here- to spend sats, and have them received as sats and get good honest content...and I do not believe I am alone in that.
If Stacker News has given up on building a sats denominated V4V platform it should be announced so that we are not operating under false understandings.
Stacker News info section on CCs calls CCs inferior to sats.
I agree with that definition.
The info section identifies them as primarily for those who are new to SNs or unable to attach a LN wallet.
If Stacker News official stance on this has changed let it be made official.
So-Is it now the stance of @ek and @Scoresby and Stacker News as a whole, that content consumers cannot reasonably expect to have any way of verifying that content providers who frequently post Bitcoin/Ln related content are acting in a way consistent with their rhetoric by attaching and showing attached LN wallets?