I'm the "Monero fanboi" he's mad at, and I already use (and only use) "Login with Lightning" .shrug

SN is already an absolutely amazing place for open discourse that prevents spam and trolls almost 100% through the use of Lightning/sats. It's working well, and the "altcoiner" discussions have been even, fair, and nuanced while being mostly critical of Monero.

I love this

That's what we do on Plebeian Market, BTW.

The only way to log in is with a Lightning wallet.

The only way to bid is using a Lightning wallet.

Would actually be interesting for SN if a Lightning wallet would be required to post as well. So the sats to post would have to come from a Lightning wallet.

The fact that it’s an option is says a lot. And it would be such a baller move.

I can't wait for Stacker News to implement subs, then this kind of drivel we don't have to see in the Bitcoin feeds.

Welcome to SN!

I agree, and think the idea of banning or downvoting discussions is a slippery slope, and a bad idea.

How can we get rid of Udi on stacker.news ? Need to take some decisions or place is doomed.

There are people that question things to learn, then there are people that simply get a buzz from being a contrarian douche...

I think you have the opportunity to play with community moderation. Hacker News uses upvoting and downvoting to do this, but you can only downvote after a certain amount of reputation. You can use sats earned as some quasi-reputation score and use that to give such people some power to downvote for some sats. Personally, I think downvotes should be way more costly than upvotes. It's a serious accusation to be making and most people don't do it unless it's serious. You also don't want it to be abused. Thus, making it more expensive will make people think twice about it.

The idea of staking to post is good as well. It has the nice side-effect of preventing spam. So posting might cost 10 sats, but also 10000 sats in a stake. If you try to flood the place, you're going to lose 10,000 sats per post. It can really become a market based moderation system. Bad posts simply go down. Obviously, this is not going to be easy to balance, but you have way more tools than Hacker News or Reddit does. Also, if you figure this out, it will monetarily incentivize good comments even more than they are now.

I think its also important to figure out how to communicate the rules to the members, especially the new comers. Getting banned is one way to learn but there might be better ways.

Btw, I think we are currently treating (or we could/should be) SN as one Bitcoin maxi community. That's IMHO the best way to get things started, but there is potential for SN to grow into a platform with many communities.

SN has a great thing going for it with value-for-value. I feel like it should try to solve these problems without creating algorithmic echo chambers, whether user defined or not.

Assigning cost to online behavior is the innovation here. Let's see what it's capable of!

You mention a risk and he mentions a risk. They are both risks.

I agree here. A great example is the monero thread available on top for today. I found some good gauge in there about the potential risks of using monero and if that type of discussion wasn’t allowed or phased out intentionally i wouldn’t have. So I tipped a wonderful explanation some sats and went on my day! I agree on don’t encourage echo chamber.

We do. But they would never use shit like Discord, which is why you haven't met them there.

Exactly, and the few who are willing to come and try , at least they Will try

In theory this works in the traditional physical public square- unfortunately everyone in media and social media is now employing the Stephen A Smith playbook of being contrarian and click-baity which only gets amplified by algorithmically driven echo chambers.

Love the bond idea.

But this:

is not resistant to Sybils who will all bet on the same bin.

Instead I propose that there's a button to punish the poster for X sats but it also costs X. So if you zap the poster for 10 sats then the SN pool receives 20: 10 from you and 10 from the poster's bond.

Bond is returned after some arbitrary period of time.

Lightning apps like Strike are making that barrier so low that shitcoiners will easily find themselves using lightning. I don't think they can log in with strike though. Removing non-lightning logins should be on the table and will probably happen eventually. There will be a time to just stop accepting inferior money.

You wouldn't go to a knitting forum and pay to advertise your erectile dysfunction pills, not unless you wanted to waste your money and time. Shilling shitcoins among maxis is equally nonproductive. It's true there should be some way of suppressing these kinds of posts, but the same applies to any other sub-teen spammer wanting to harass or post porn.

The fact that porn isn't spread far and wide on SN is a testament to the effectiveness of requiring payment to post.

The problem is the newbs that are led astray and scammed by shitcoin FUD and lies. At a point it crosses the line into spamming and trolling, and I think the idea is to prevent it getting to that point. But it's not a valid concern now as there are no newbs here to "protect." I would like to see where this experiment in financial micro-incentives leads with a hard limit on interference from the "traditional" arsenal of social controls.

congratulations @jimmysong for coming up with the only shitpost i found on SN till now,

down voting should be a must feature to add here.

No way