pull down to refresh

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.

  1. ↩

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.

reply

I didn’t realize they took them away! It’s been a long time since I contributed though

reply

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.

reply
129 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 25 Feb

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:

  1. a higher reward for detailed issues
  2. a grave penalty, like 50% for a single requested change
  3. banning future contributions when something is totally off base

might be enough

reply

Have you thought about requiring an upfront payment for a PR to be considered? Which would be refunded when it's successfully merged?

reply

No but that would help

reply

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

reply

I'm the bottom entry.

reply

Oh nice you have over 300k lined up.

reply

Maybe this will work: #1441546

reply