pull down to refresh

Cowboy credits (sadly).

That's ok. I will try to lure them with credits to get them started and then zap them some introductory sats once they attach a wallet. I just didn't want to create confusion by saying sats if they weren't going to receive sats.

I am trying to convert our fantasy baseball league chat over from stupid twitter DM to SN. Why are we talking on twitter when we could be zapping on SN? A number of the players are already on SN but at least 5 or 6 aren't but should be.

reply
41 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 11 May

Once you get some reps, or find something that works, let me know if we can introduce some feature/pattern to help.

In general to send them sats:

  • they need a receiving wallet attached[1]
  • you need to be online

Those are the limiting factors. Beyond that, if there's something we can do to make this kind of thing easier, I'd like to.

  1. I'm working on adding internal wallets, which should make this easier, but it's taking a minute.

reply

It would be cool if I sent a 1000 credit invite link and they joined and attached a wallet if they could get a reward of 1000 sats once they spend the 1000 credits. Might be too much work to implement vs me saying I will zap your first post 1k sats once you have a wallet attached.

reply
168 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 11 May

Without many reps, off the dome, maybe something like:

  1. they signup
  2. they attach a wallet
  3. you get a notification asking if you want to send them sats
reply

Yeah that could work.

reply
introduce some feature/pattern to help

Maybe i'm naive, but couldn't you just ask for a lightning address?

not everyone will have one, but it would reduce the friction for those who do

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 12 May -30 sats

Kindly can you say, What is the half life of downzaps?

@k00bs consistent answer . . .

Passive Aggressive ... S I L E N C E . . .

And YES CCs are inferior! They are by definition SHITCOINS.

But you defend those using them as a preference @DarthCoin @denlillaapan (while disingenuously claiming to be 'BTC Maxis') on spurious grounds of 'privacy'.