reply on: Brainstorm: No Trust November \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

50 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 10 Dec \ on: Brainstorm: No Trust November meta

I'm really curious to see how this experiment turns out. Right now I can only see one possible issue: in a place with very few ZAPS (not many users spending sats), it becomes pretty easy for bad-intentioned users to push their posts onto the front page. Maybe downzapping starts to make more sense in that case.

Could you explain that part a bit better?

also, because downzaps have ~3x the provable sacrifice of a zap or boost of the same amount (ie downzaps send ~3x the amount to the rewards pool), they will have ~3x the effect on ranking

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 10 Dec

For a 100 sat zap, 30 sats goes to the rewards pool and territory founder.

For a 100 sat downzap, 100 sats goes to the rewards pool.

downzap proof-of-sacrifice / zap proof-of-sacrifice = 100 / 30 = ~3

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @supratic 10 Dec

Can we see downzaps the same way we see zaps at some point? Something like this?

Seeing the amount of sats near the post/comment is not accurate anymore, I suggest showing only the total amount of sats+ccs, both upzapped and downzapped.

What would be the issue in showing downzaps? WOuld this make the outlawed tag irrelevant?

We, as stackers, could decide to hide posts by

x

unzaps same way we currently do with min amount of sats.

Newbies could have a preset amount of

y

by default, but in control to change it if desired.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 10 Dec

I'll add downzaps to the item details. The other suggestions are good, and I'll keep them in mind, but I'm not sure they'll make it into the release.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 10 Dec

no rush, happy to hear it makes sense. If I were able to do it, I'd submit a pr myself.