I thought I would share my thoughts on what the next "rewards experiment" should look like. Or maybe, it could be the "end-game", who knows. Honestly, I forget what all the past experiments even were, so maybe this has already been tried?
It feels like with the randomness introduced, stackers have been held more accountable to produce quality content and/or zap good content, not knowing which behavior will be rewarded. Of course, this is just a feeling and not supported by any hard evidence. But I think that was the original intent, so success!
However, I think it can be discouraging to some when maybe you zap a really good post early on a day where zapping ends up not being rewarded, or maybe you make a really great comment on a day where early zapping is rewarded, instead.
My idea is as follows: Both behaviors (zapping top content, creating top content) get rewarded a guaranteed 10% of the rewards pool daily. The remaining 80% gets randomly distributed between the two behaviors on a daily basis. The goal is that this would keep stackers accountable to work towards each goal, knowing that they will get some reward, and maybe a lot more, depending on the random draw.
In any case, I'd love to hear your opinion of both this proposal, or maybe some others! Thank you for reading.
I just got a notification that I lost my cowboy hat and my heart sunk.
Fortunately, it was from my local instance of SN where I do development whew
First of all
In the name of Kronk why would you do this? Why? What benefit is there to putting the photos on the blockchain?
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/b/b1/Kronk2.0.png
Secondly
Covenants ensure that an address can only send its contents to a set of whitelisted destinations, and in this case it seems like you want the whitelist to consist of (1) the landlord or (2) the tenant, where the choice ultimately comes down to (a) their agreement or (b) a stacker news poll.
Option (a) requires a 2 of 2 multisig, and that seems to eliminate any role for covenants. Bitcoin's multisig technology already lets two parties create an address together, agree on a set of destinations, and not let the money go anywhere else, simply by not signing to send the money anywhere else. Covenants let you do this without the action of a second party, but since your scheme requires two parties anyway, I don't think covenants add anything.
Covenants also don't help you achieve (b) which is the really hard part. Bitcoin doesn't know stacker news exists and has no built in way of responding to its polls. You could perhaps achieve something kind of similar by having the 50 most active stacker news contributors put their pubkeys in a big multisig script and require 26 signers to approve any movement of funds using that script. If every loan added that script to the lease contract, you could let those 50 people vote if the landlord and the tenant have a dispute.
But (1) this idea does not require covenants anywhere (2) it's not the same as using a *real* stacker news poll (3) I don't see how covenants can enable the latter.
Lastly
Your post uses the term "trust" throughout it and talks about how to "cultivate trust" by letting Stackers vote on stuff. It ends by calling this "trustless communities [with] SN as facilitator." This is entirely self contradictory. If you're trusting Stackers to vote honestly then your scheme is the very opposite of trustless. "Trustless" means "you don't have to trust anyone." What you're describing is literally "trusting many people" and you even say so. Please don't call things trustless after spending such a long time describing, explicitly, the opposite of trustless.
PonyDirect
https://github.com/MuleTools/PonyDirect
Samouraiās New Feature: Send Bitcoin Via SMS Text Message
https://medium.com/@jholmes91/samourais-new-feature-send-bitcoin-via-sms-text-message-23c9b2c1a37b
In short, I believe that should be as free as possible. However, cannot become a lawless Wild West š¤
I don't know much about the updated numbers but sadly we don't have the discount for fuel anymore and even if they did they only accept chivo dollars so you cant just roll up at a gas station as a "gringo" with an "external wallet" and pay with sats
Chivo has great benefits but fatal flaws, say you go to a business and they are using chivo on mobile you can only receive dollars with no options to convert, if its desktop Chivo you need to teach the person how to use it but you have all 3 options dollars, onchain, lightning and you can convert same goes if you go to the Pupusa Lady and she has a personal account
as for remittances the normies still line up at the western union, some on forgot to tell them 1 btc=1 btc Im speeking about my experiance here on the east side of the country the forgotten asshole of this country, I know that adoption on the west side is greater but I still manage to live 100% off of bitcoin, I made my own little circular economy here in my village pupusas, gas, convince store a Lady at el Mercado who sells fruits and vegetables, all my bills are paid with sats everything im so deep in the bitcoin standard that even @DarthCoin would stand in aw.
Cool to see them surface. They've been building in the LDK ecosystem since about the same time we were. Except on hard mode with no-std in an SGX environment. You think running in the browser is hard lmao.
It's basically greenlight but the user keys are in an SGX server. I don't know how you prove that they are secure or that they are operating it in that way. Also you gotta trust SGX and there's been many SGX fail research. I don't know what is FUD or not.
The nodes are cheap to manage tho since LDK is incredibly lightweight. So they can always run, unlike with greenlight (unless they're working on making that scale better). So you can have more "offline receive" potential. Think of this as a less or more (depends on your assessment) trusted voltage with a wallet interface.