pull down to refresh
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.
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
Since I declined a salaried job offer post-interview today, I'm a freelancer still, so that makes me at the very least a mercenary, though to me that feels not so much a small business owner; I am the business, literally.
If today I get 2 opportunities to make into a gig and I'd have to choose between one that pays in sats, and one that pays in fiat, I'd of course take the sats. The problem I have is that there aren't many big businesses (which are my customers) that are willing or often even legally allowed to pay me in sats.
And then when I did score a big sats denominated gig I got walked out on and ignored at the final milestone payment coming due (because the suckers didn't buy the BTC up front.) So I'm hesitant to at least denominate contracts in BTC for multi-stage gigs because the counterparty needs to be ready for that too, and they aren't.
I think though that it's unwise to approach "small business" for sats as a registered business type of thing. It's not worth the trouble because it's all political, and we all know how the wind can change on Bitcoin. Instead, just sell products on ~AGORA instead of on Etsy. Maybe I'll try out offering services there, see if that works?