pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 36 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug \ on: Stacker Saloon
Say stackers would want to downzap a boosted scam of, let's totally make up an arbitrary amount of 150k sats boost and 800 sats zaps. How much do stackers need to downzap for it to be outlawed?
Roughly the same number that upvoted it or half as many spending 10x more or a quarter as many spending 100x more.
I just can't fathom why so many people upzapped it.
reply
Okay so if - hypothetically and in minecraft - i already downzapped more than it was upzapped, we just need 18 stackers downzapping 1 sat and we good?
reply
At least 10 sats each. Zap weight is
log10 of the amount.reply
Wait, do downzaps need to be at least 10 sats to matter?
reply
reply
I get that. Did k00b just say it had to be at least 10 to balance out your 18 stacker count?
reply
reply
if the goal is to outlaw
I was thinking about this point in relation to what @Scoresby said on another branch of this discussion:
In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.
Do downzaps have any effect on non-
top-boost posts before they trigger the outlaw threshold? I.e. lower ranking on hot on the list view or comments?Alrighty, downzapper set to 10.
reply
I wish that had occurred to me. I almost always downzapped 1 sat because I only wanted to add weight to the count without pushing too hard on size.
Basically, I just wanted to make it easier for others to get stuff outlawed.
reply
Got it. Thank you for making me not read the code from an uber <3
reply
Looks like it's outlawed now, but top boost doesn't consider outlaw status I guess.
I'll ship a fix.
reply
reply
Fixed. It's still the top boost in Wild West Mode but that's as intended.
I remember thinking about outlaws as I made the
top boost mvp. I prefer demand response I guess.reply
Thought about the top boost demand-response theory. It would be a great way to maximize territory revenue to have scammer sats try to outbid honest boosts.
Morally, I think the downzap is better - because do we really want to make money off scammers trying to get victims?
I was pondering something else: Do downzaps go 70/30 to territory and rewards like fees? Would be better if these go 100% to rewards IMHO, because 70% is a huge incentive for territory owners to encourage crap content.
reply
In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.
What I mean is: it's better to allow a scammer to boost and get visibility, than it is to allow a strong downzapper to hide content.
Reason: the tool we use to banish scammers can also be used by scammers to banish valuable content they don't want others to see.
Imagine a scenario where someone posts about a flaw in a project or bad behavior, if the owner of the project can banish such a post by heavily downzapping.
Don't we run greater risk to the community by allowing a strong power to hide information than we do by allowing a strong power to boost information?
reply
imagine if it was a "freebie" too and posted by a "bot"
But can a boost be a freebie?