pull down to refresh
I think the idea was good, the execution was ok at best, subpar at worst.
I don't think it should have been extended a second month even though the changes (more stackers, less top heavy rewards) are improvements. I think the idea of having a March Madness once a year style tournament where everyone goes crazy is a good one and should be kept as an annual event. If the SN team really likes the engagement it creates maybe do a one week version every quarter along with the big tournament every March.
In my opinion the MSM event was great for existing power users but no so much for less frequent stackers and new users.
I guess it comes down to what the SN team's goal is in creating the Madness. If it is to enhance engagement amongst the already engaged it was highly effective. If it is to entice less engaged stackers to be more engaged it was probably moderately effective at first and less effective in the second half of the month. If it is to entice new stackers to join it wasn't very effective at all because new people really didn't have any chance to rank anywhere in the standings that would amount to a large reward payout at the end of the month.
In my opinion, I think you can still reward power users but have a structure that is conducive to bringing in new stackers who hopefully eventually become power users. I recognize it's a delicate balance especially if you want to keep doing a good job limiting spam and not rewarding sats farmers.
Anyways, those are my thoughts.
Cheers,
GR
- How did you get into Bitcoin?
- What made you start Bitrefill?
- What are you most proud of regarding Bitrefill?
- What is the most sold product on Bitrefill?
- What is the hardest thing about getting a circular economy going?
I'm reaching my limited depth here, but here's we go..
Life, as we know it, is characterized of written in Chinese language (simplified) like:
生活 shenghuo (it's pretty 1 to 1 with 'life' in all its senses in English. As a noun or can be used as an adjective. So, we can make 生人 or 活人 which I believe is interchangeable.
Now, for the purpose of designating a living man, (in the sense of a legal living person) often there is the use of 人身 (living body of a human being; person)
My dictionary cites an example:
人身 renshen - living man
不可 buke - cannot
侵犯 qinfan - violate, infringe (upon) invade..
人身不可侵犯 - inviolability of the person.
also, searching out that sense we have:
人身安全 - renshen anquan - personal safety
人身保护令 - renshen baohuling - habeas corpus
人身权 - renshenquan - right (as in personal, or human rights)
人身自由 - renshen ziyou - personal freedom (or liberty); freedom of person
You are very wrong, Bitcoin maximalism is simply Newton's Third Law in its finest:
for every action there is a reaction
Bitcoin maximalism is only a self-defence mechanism against: fragmentation.
Because fragmentation means that Bitcoin cannot fulfill the social role of money
And even our "enemy" i.e. Bank for International Settlements lays the cards on the table:
"Fragmentation means that crypto [i.e. Bitcoin] cannot fulfil the social role of money."
https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull56.pdf
Be your own bank regardless if you are far left or right.
And avoid your own bank fragmentation.
Voting system particulars are opaque to regular users, but visible to developers, since you have open source. So malicious agents will be ready with their bots the moment SN userbase (/daily coin flow) reaches a certain level.
For instance, using a small botnet to create and fund 100 accounts with 1000 sats each (~30 usd cost). Could use this to for instance:
- Create superpower users. By having all the bots post (chatgpt generated stuff so it's not so obvious), then upvote each others posts (and a few externals, to fuzzy analyis), it seems that the "graph of trust" generated could be gamed such that arbitrary amount of "trust" can be given (or taken away, by flagging/downvoting) to any user.
- DDos your trust graph (which seems to have O^3 time complexity? So 1 sat/comment -> ~260 USD to make 1M ItemAct (etc) from separate users -> 1 TB adjacency table for trust..) It appears the trust-graph has a heavy recursive algorithm, I don't see any load tests for it but i might be wrong.
- I haven't looked super deep into the graph construction algorithm so you might have ways to prevent the above. But in case you haven't considered this: Could PageRank fit as an ranking algorithm instead of the graph? You want to give rank to users who zap high quality posts (early), and divide their rank by total number they zap, then rank by how many incoming vs outgoing zaps per user. IIRC it is O(n+m) complexity (n - nodes, m - links).
- Since Rewards calcs are done at a public, given time every 24hs, the same attack as above, or any other extracted from the source code can be done just before Reward calc to suddenly steal all 21% of posts and get all the rewards.
Suggestion: Randomize the times these calculations are performed. Also extract out from open source the "heart" of vote calculation. - Generally write load testers for big user influx cases, see what happens.
Just installed it on my phone. Thanks for the PSA!
"You can generate the PBST file from Sparrow..."
So sparrow wallet is compatible with pigeon protocol? :)
Coming back to SN after a 3 month hiatus
Also, notice how the program counter counts to 10 and then jumps back to 2? That's called a "JMP" command or sometimes a Loop
"But I thought bitcoin doesn't have loops!"
Well, uh, you see life, uh...finds a way
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/jurassicpark/images/c/c6/JP-IanMalcolm.jpg