reply on: Stacker Saloon \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Aug \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

Wait, do downzaps need to be at least 10 sats to matter?

42 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug

log10(1) == 0, because 10^0 == 1

However, log10(2) ~= 0.3, so, at least 2?

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Aug

I get that. Did k00b just say it had to be at least 10 to balance out your 18 stacker count?

142 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 21 Aug

Yep, if the goal is to outlaw, downzappers need to zap more than 1 sat.

144 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 21 Aug

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?

142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 21 Aug

Yes, they downrank content until cum_zap_weight - cum_downzap_weight is sufficiently negative.

142 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 21 Aug

Alright. To me, this means not so much that the downzap function itself is the cause of any the visibility issue when it comes to boosts, but more that the boosts are an all-or-nothing concept in terms of viz, that can only be countered by bidding war or - since today - be outlawed.

I'll have to think about this a bit more but that's where I'm at.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 21 Aug

Alrighty, downzapper set to 10.

142 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 20 Aug

They matter at 1 sat, but only for informing the trust graph.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Aug

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.