pull down to refresh
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
No, it's not custodial for me because it is not a wallet for me. This is what you misunderstand. It's like a prepaid phone to me. I just put in some sats which I can only use (as CCs) and when its running low I put in more, which is 3-4x per week.
i think i get what you're saying, but fail to see why you wouldn't just load a custodial lightning wallet 3-4x per week. a rugpull can happen with sn and the ln wallet. what am i missing?
lol — i don't like them either. are you completely against banks as a principle?
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
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.
Coinos is a bank and a very bad one because it got rugged. I do not use banks.
You can argue all you want but it's not going to work. You always whine about principles. My principles are: fuck banks, fuck governments, and fuck anyone that tries to tell someone else what they should do.
I just do what I want. If you have a problem with that, do a PR on https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news and remove CCs. Good luck.
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.
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
so the reason we have cc on sn seems to be people like you...
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?