reply on: p2p sats sent to attached wallet - this is so cool! \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

353 sats \ 9 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Oct \ on: p2p sats sent to attached wallet - this is so cool! meta

I am still a "cowboy credits" maximalist. I will go further and propose a change in SN: make upvotes/downvotes only with cowboy credits and if the user want to send sats separately through a p2p payment that will be a separate thing.

I will repeat: will be too much friction with all these zaps back and forth between stackers. And people will realize later that I am right.

141 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 1 Oct

This will not age well

1 sat \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Oct

every satoshi will count. And when people will see that for a 10 sats zap will have to pay 1 sat fee, they will think twice...

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 1 Oct

Yes and consider to open a private channel

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Oct

that doesn't help. And could create even a worst scenario: SN node could became a "watcher" of all these zaps. Adding more complexity in SN zaps will not make more people to self-custody. Some level of custody is OK.

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @ek 1 Oct

We already know who zaps who or who withdraws where.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 1 Oct

exactly. So why complicate things when could be simple with cowboy credits ? I could have much better privacy with cowboy credits than p2p zaps.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Oct

🙄

The non-custodial stuff is literally just an option. You can use cowboy credits if you want but I think most stackers would prefer to receive real sats.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jerrybature 1 Oct

However it goes, I still remain humble, stacking sats, and zapping seamlessly. Amen!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @redlight_pleb 1 Oct

I resonate with this take, yeehaw 🤠