pull down to refresh
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.
it was a civilized conversation and now you are attacking me. calling me a troll. what did i say that you feel attacked or hurt? i am sorry about that and you are right, i misunderstood that you were saying cc have the same value as sats. but that just proves my point, that whoever uses cc on sn doesn't use bitcoin, cause apples are not pears
what did i say that you feel attacked or hurt?
Example:
you definitely said CC = sats on sn
Instead of taking what I said at face value (that I'm not trying to deceive you, you even quoted that back at me) you, as a counterargument, literally change my argument and then ascribe it to me. To be clear, no, I definitely did not say "CC = sats on sn". So either you were lost, or you are trolling. If you then continue to make "people like me" responsible for the fact that there are CCs, you are probably trolling.
I agree with you that USDT != USD. I agree with you that CCs != sats. I agree with you that zapping with CCs is not the same as zapping with sats. The value is interchangeable though, proven by the fact that if you would zap me for 10 sats, and you have 7 CCs, you'd spend the 7 and then 3 sats over LN... it's 1:1 pegged - for now. It could change; I said that too.
But I didn't say that it was the same and I even said that it's an undesirable situation. I'd not use CCs if there were a good solution that is usable for me with a connected LN wallet. Unfortunately, the closest wallet currently is Zeus and it doesn't work well for production for me yet (they also launched this feature only last month, so it needs time to mature.)
i am sorry i misrepresented you, that was not my intention and i really thought you said cc = sats, but i didn't check, that is also probably why it didn't make any sense to me...
i guess we only disagree on the point of custodial lightning wallets. you prefer to use sn as a custodial for cc instead of a custodial ightning wallet for sats
Every time I zap I am using the LN to enable that payment.
When you use CCs you are not.
You are not supporting the LN.
People you zap do not receive sats they get CC shitcoin credit within SN centralised database...they do not receive sats to their wallet.
If we do not use the LN it will not grow stronger.
SNs is an excellent place where anyone can use LN - learn how LN works and enjoy real P2P V4V payments and circular economy while on every single zap they send they are supporting the nodes and wallets and wider LN infrastructure.
By NOT using LN here on SN you are NOT supporting the LN infrastructure.
You are undermining the establishment and development of a strong LN and sats based V4V circular economy on SNs.
Like darthcoin you might dismiss SNs as a 'game' but SNs is in fact an amazing testbed and trial for how sats can be used in a V4V P2P way- lets support that instead of undermining it.
Attach your wallet/s today and lets build SNs and LN strong!
I'm sorry but we also had this discussion before. My SN spends (despite not having been outside of top10 spenders any week for almost a year now) are insignificant compared to my LN and on-chain spends. It's simply not enough value to justify the additional security needed as long as there are no good wallets that are non-custodial and support NWC.
I had hopes for Zeus 0.12 but it needs more love. I still want to test Justin's setup though, but I need to do a lot of security work for it. It will come, but I cannot guarantee that it will be a permanent solution; that depends on how well it works for me, and me alone.
So you refuse to use a custodial wallet like coinos that makes zapping with sats easy and very cheap while supporting coinos team development and liquidity?
LN is always going to come with some compromises on L1 but the aim is to get and grow MoE capability and using sats instead of CCs on SNs is a way of supporting the development of LN.
Currently it is clear self custody wallets are difficult to use on SNs but as soon as they can then you can switch to them, but until then lets support the whole LN development process by using the wallets that can be used within our technical abilities.
If I can use coinos I am sure you can too!
I love the idea that the (very minimal) fees I pay coinos are going toward developing both coinos and LN strength and liquidity.
If we wait for perfection we may never achieve it- let's work with what we have and work toward supporting constant improvement by using LN where and when and how we can.
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.
okay, sorry for the bad comparison. so you agree that when you use cc on sn you don't use bitcoin but a credit / token?
I USE bitcoin because those CCs can be bought ONLY with sats.
SAME as cashu tockens.
this doesn't make any sense
cashu is two way, cc only one way
just because you can buy something only with bitcoin, doesn't mean that whatever you bought means you use bitcoin
bitcoin is money and you buy things with money. instead of paying in bitcoin to post or upvote, you decided to buy a token with bitcoin and use that token to do what you could do with bitcoin directly
where am i wrong?
When you use CCs you are not using the LN and you are not supporting the LN.
Everytime anyone with attached wallets zaps they are supporting the LN nodes.wallets and infrastructure.
But you @DarthCoin choose to boycott that infrastructure and its strength, development, devs, aps, and liquidity by using CC shitcoins.
Stop undermining the LNs development and attach your wallet/s.
When you use CCs you are not using the LN and you are not supporting the LN.
Everytime anyone with attached wallets zaps they are supporting the LN nodes.wallets and infrastructure.
But you @DarthCoin choose to boycott that infrastructure and its strength, development, devs, aps, and liquidity by using CC shitcoins.
Stop undermining the LNs development and attach your wallet/s.
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 😂😂😂
no one denies that. i guess you don't want to answer the question?
since i can't withdraw my cc, they can't be bitcoin in my book and i don't think i am wrong about it. but you can of course try to convince me otherwise. always happy to be wrong
since i can't withdraw my cc,
FFS man you are obsessed with withdraw them.
Do you understand the meaning of PAY TO POST ? This is SN, not post to withdraw sats.
on sn you pay to post and get paid to post
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.
i thought about this a little bit more
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?
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
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...