pull down to refresh
that is a strawmen. or maybe i didn't word it correctly. let me try again
if i zap someone without a wallet attached, the person doesn't receive what i've sent. before this discussion: i thought when i zap someone the person gets bitcoin. i am coming from nostr, where that is the case. and i assumed zapping here means the same. which obviously it doesn't
If I wanted that then why am I not using SEPA to tip you?
because you can't. in my worldview it is a scale. you seem to disagree, which is fine
that is a strawm[a]n
Yes, I just hyperbole'd your own though.
if i zap someone without a wallet attached, the person doesn't receive what i've sent.
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.) The thing they lose is portability. That's their choice. Is it a good situation? No. Are there usable, user-friendly, non-custodial mobile apps that support NWC for sending? No (but Zeus is working on it.)
i am coming from nostr, where that is the case.
Not entirely. In nostr zaps, you publicly broadcast some json that could but also could not have happened. It's not a recording of facts, but a recording of virtue signaling.
because you can't.
Exactly! Just like right now, I do not have a server with LND running, so I can't zap you sats and you cannot zap me sats. Are you objecting to that?
Bottom line, let's not judge others. If people dislike Darth because he's a toxic maxi and judgmental, the solution is probably not to reciprocate the toxicity and judgment.
i thought about this a little bit more
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.) The thing they lose is portability. That's their choice. Is it a good situation? No. Are there usable, user-friendly, non-custodial mobile apps that support NWC for sending? No (but Zeus is working on it.)
isn't the thing about bitcoin that it is portable. i can send it to anyone with a wallet. that makes 1 cc not equal to 1 sat. or where is my thinking wrong?
Not entirely. In nostr zaps, you publicly broadcast some json that could but also could not have happened. It's not a recording of facts, but a recording of virtue signaling.
are you saying, when on nostr i see the confirmation of my zap, that the other person maybe did not receive my zap? i am pretty sure that the receiving wallet sends back a confirmation of the received funds and the client displays that
Exactly! Just like right now, I do not have a server with LND running, so I can't zap you sats and you cannot zap me sats. Are you objecting to that?
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...
where is my thinking wrong?
It's not. But note that SN != bitcoin. It just uses sats as a unit of account and allows someone (optionally) to connect a wallet. I don't think that it is reasonable to complain to users of a provided feature about their usage of it. The reason why the feature is there is because the tradeoffs for connecting LN in this way are still rather heavy: either you run a server with a very hot wallet which means you need to actually secure it, or you run Zeus on your phone which is currently still buggy and it sucks battery, or you go custodial. If you don't want to do custodial, you need a rather sturdy setup which I don't think many stackers have right now.
are you saying, when on nostr i see the confirmation of my zap, that the other person maybe did not receive my zap?
I'm saying that no message can prove that the invoice actually was paid, and it can easily be faked. NIP-57 says this too:
The zap receipt is not a proof of payment, all it proves is that some nostr user fetched an invoice. The existence of the zap receipt implies the invoice as paid, but it could be a lie given a rogue implementation.
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...
I think you mean "SN with a connected wallet". And I can choose that, this choice is a feature. If you want me to not use SN when not connecting a wallet, just make a pull request to delete the feature of buying CCs; it's easy.
nostr: when i see the amount deducted in my lightning wallet, the client (open source, running locally) shows me the zap, there is a pretty high probability that the receiver got some bitcoins. so my original claim is true
i thought when i zap someone the person gets bitcoin. i am coming from nostr, where that is the case
sn: i agree that cc is a feature you can use, but claiming cc = sats is wrong. i have some cc. how do i transfer them to my lightning wallet? i can't. so maybe cc and sats achieve the same function on sn, but they are definitely not the same. when you use cc you don't use bitcoin. which of course is your decision
The reason why the feature is there is because...
did a developer claim that or how do you know?
...the tradeoffs for connecting LN in this way are still rather heavy
you create the additional requirement that it can't be custodial, which makes it arguably heavy, but it is super easy to connect a custodial wallet
I didn't claim CCs = sats. I made a statement about the valuation of it. Check my statement once more. I also said it reduces portability. I'm not trying to deceive you here.
when i see the amount deducted in my lightning wallet
What do you mean deducted? In a Lightning Wallet (and Bitcoin in general), you sign a transaction.
did a developer claim that or how do you know?
That's how I summarize it, yes. The reason for CCs as I understand it is that after custodial sats were removed on SN, there was still a need for supporting stackers that don't have a working connectable wallet. Which was at the time a large number of them.
you create the additional requirement
Yeah I did that in 2013. It just hasn't changed and it would be a huge sacrifice on my part to do so. A custodial wallet is a step away from sovereignty for me. To me, it makes no sense to use custodial stuff that falsely claims it is Bitcoin, especially not because SN has a built-in solution that doesn't claim to be Bitcoin and works.
Not your keys, not your coin and - before you start saying Fedi or Cashu or some L2 - also not your gateway/bridge/sequencer, not your coin.
I'm not okay with normalizing custodial wallets in Bitcoin, because these aren't wallets; they're bank accounts.
I didn't claim CCs = sats. I made a statement about the valuation of it. Check my statement once more. I also said it reduces portability. I'm not trying to deceive you here.
i try to be humble. but you definitely said CC = sats on sn. now you say it is about the valuation. which leads down another rabbit hole. usdt = usd? in value yes, but not in function
The reason for CCs as I understand it is that after custodial sats were removed on SN, there was still a need for supporting stackers that don't have a working connectable wallet
so the reason we have cc on sn seems to be people like you...
it makes no sense to use custodial stuff that falsely claims it is Bitcoin
fiat in your bank account is not fiat? i agree that there is a tradeoff in using a custodial lightning wallet. that doesn't mean it is not bitcoin
you are using sn as the custodial and don't even have the possiblity to withdraw the "sats" (read cc), why not use a custodial and be able to withdraw into self custody?
Seriously?
let me link it to you. Let me also repeat it once more:
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.)
See the 1 in front of each symbol at both sides of the equation? That means we're comparing relative value between 2 units of account.
If I trade 1 apple for 1 pear, then 1 apple = 1 pear. But that does not mean that apple = pear, because in the first statement we were comparing apple and pear as units of account and in the second we're talking about definitions of apple and pear itself. I know that linguistically it is super confusing.
Note that if what you say is true then the thing I said immediately after it, must have struck you as a complete misconstruction because differences would negate intrinsic value, yet you didn't complain. So are you truly this desperately twisting my words because my explanation is so bad, or because you're just trolling?
so the reason we have cc on sn seems to be people like you...
Okay? Lol. I'm sorry your life sucks because of people like me?!? Jeez.
fiat in your bank account is not fiat?
No it is not. When in the future you get debanked (despite your trolling, I still do not wish that for you) tell us how you learned that the hard way.
you are using sn as the custodial and don't even have the possiblity to withdraw the "sats" (read cc), why not use a custodial and be able to withdraw to into self custody?
I'm a net spender, so there is nothing to withdraw, only top up.
You are comparing two different things.
CC are just credits / tokens that have same value as 1 sat inside SN. And only inside SN.
USDT are another story.
fiat in a bank acc? is another story. So let's not deviate from CCs. We are talking about SN. Don't try to extend SN into real world. SN is just here, virtual, a forum to discuss. And you pay to post (with CCs or sats, it doesn't matter).
Nothing else.
You are obsessed with "withdraw my sats" from SN.
I am not obsessed with "withdraw" because I do not have to. I just reuse the credits inside SN.
oh man you still don't get it.
Is not CC = sats. It is 1 CC = 1 sat INSIDE SN. Outside SN, the CCs are totally worthless, unusable. So why would I want to withdraw them? I just use to zap inside SN. That's all.
I think you do not understand the mechanic of SN and the fact that spending less sats for zaps on SN is much better. You can spend more sats outside of SN, in REAL life for food, shelter and security.
I think this misunderstanding is coming from the fact that people do not really earn and spend sats in real life. For many only some meaningless zaps on nostrs and SN and buying some VPN online is all that they use with sats...
But when you start earning and spending everything in sats, you start valuing every fucking sat, spending it wisely.
do you agree that when you use cc inside stacker news, you don't use bitcoin? if yes i do understand you. if not i don't understand you
The truth is that you can use both 😂😂😂
isn't the thing about bitcoin that it is portable. [...]
ok, this is beyond typos; you're using the wrong word, entirely.
please read about fungibility, or simply take my word for it: "portability" is understandable in context, however, the fundamental property to which you refer is most accurately termed fungibility.
thank you for the exchange. i try not to judge people and try to understand their worldview. sometimes i can learn from it, sometimes i don't. sometimes i can adabt my own worldview, sometimes i don't. that is just life
strawm[a]n
i hate making typos, but love it when people let me know
I think we can always learn, most people aren't evil, we just have to try and take a step back sometimes. It's better that we do it often, that's why I went to punch a bag for 2 days in a row now, so that I can have calmer conversations haha. Too bad I have to travel soon.
1 CC = 1 sat. Same as using cashu. SN is a closed mint.
You cannot buy CCs with SEPA or other thing. You cannot spend CCs outside SN.
Is so fucking simple game.
I will repeat: most of people attaching an external wallet are coming here to assmilk for sats. I don't. And the fact that I use only CCs show that I am not interested in earning sats because I cannot use CCs outside SN.
I use CCs exclusively to post on SN and zap good content or downzap stupid people and shitcoiners.
i thought about this a little bit more
i have some cc and want to get sats. since you say 1 cc = 1 sat. how do i do that?
If you have CCs you just have to zap them to somebody else on SN.
When you zap on SN, it first send CCs if you have, after you empty them it starts sending sats from your external.
that means cc ≠sats? i would like to withdaw my cc to my lightning wallet
you still don't get it....
By zapping those CCs for anything on SN is the same as zapping sats, are upvotes.
Once you spend all your CCs you start zapping sats from the attached wallet.
Yes, you can give those CCs to me and I can send you sats. But why doing that, when you can use them to upvote something without spending any of your sats?
Stacking sats means you spend wisely the sats, not only receiving...
i do understand what you described. you're confirming that cc are not sats. they fullfill the same function on sn, but i can't withdraw my cc
thank you, i think i understand your arguments now better. i am not sure i agree with your argument, i have to think about it. also have to look into cashu at some point, still have no clue about it
cashu is just a gift card from a mint. You give to the mint sats, they give you tokens.
You can use those tokens between mint users or melt them into sats by paying any other LN invoice.
Exactly like CCs from SN, but with the exception that cashu can be spent with any other LN wallet / invoice, the redeem / melt is on the fly. and CCs cannot do that.
If that were true then if someone then goes to spend their sats to buy hire an assassin to get rid of their wife, you're indirectly supporting femicide.
Not in my world. Custodial wallets posing as real solutions for payments are the true evil. If I wanted that then why am I not using SEPA to tip you?