pull down to refresh
back when they were still doing contributor bounties
Oh! I saw I got awarded some sats a few months ago but I didn't claim it. Didn't know it was gone. It was very generous imho - at least in my case.
I haven't done anything for a while, but that's more because my focus turned towards my SN research project vs. contributing code.
I think that your SN research project was awesome. You're very skilled.
It's also why I didn't put too much effort in running stats on the downzaps when they started happening - I feel like an imposter. I did some things in R, like try to see if those never ending downzaps were hurting @Scoresby's engagement [1], because that was hit hardest. But I am not a statistician and I can't make soup out of this. No sers. I will stick to reporting how many blocks are signaling BIP-110 😂
My comparative advantage is still research work and not programming. No idea how I can get paid for sats for that.
In applied form, I expect this to become needed. Not when everyone is panicking or partying due to NgD/NgU respectively, but in the middle, when businesses build. Some of the Bitcoin businesses have become big enough to need someone that can make soup of things.
If you're listed in https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/blob/master/awards.csv and still haven't been paid, I think they'd still be willing to pay.
I think they took away contributor bounties though because too many bots were trying to claim them.
I didn’t realize they took them away! It’s been a long time since I contributed though
it's still on the README.md, so maybe they didn't take it away. I vaguely recall @k00b mentioning stopping it because of too many bots. But my recollection may be faulty.
I just paused them. As is, they are biased toward producing code and that's the easy part now.
Somehow, we need to gate/award folks based on specification, QA, and code review.
I suspect having:
- a higher reward for detailed issues
- a grave penalty, like 50% for a single requested change
- banning future contributions when something is totally off base
might be enough
Have you thought about requiring an upfront payment for a PR to be considered? Which would be refunded when it's successfully merged?
Losing 50% for a requested change would probably turn me off from even trying, honestly. That’s a big hit. But I recognize the challenge here
I'd love to be able to get paid for sats for work. The best I've done is contributing to Stacker.News back when they were still doing contributor bounties. I haven't done anything for a while, but that's more because my focus turned towards my SN research project vs. contributing code. My comparative advantage is still research work and not programming. No idea how I can get paid for sats for that.