pull down to refresh

I can query that from the API because i leave traces. Currently about 10-15 new ones per day

I saw those if they published their bios, some are honest about being bots, but some fishy ones pretend to be human.

reply

Yeah the bios in posts/new are very visible tho those are still mostly backlink farmers even though I don't think that backlinks work in bios... so it's odd.

reply

It's so funny like, you would think people would actually do the work to earn sats, but no, same, even create bot army to milk the sats.

reply

My first bitcoin was earned; that was 13 years ago. It was gratuity for helping a dudes coding team making multisig work. So to me, sats, or back then, coin, was a medium of exchange; value earned by providing value adding service. To this day I feel this way.

Freeloading is offensive to me. It doesn't add anything. We've always attracted less savory people in bitcoin, but if the majority is zapping only to get funded with scam money, then i guess being unsavory is the norm now.

reply
value earned by providing value adding service.

That's what I think too, the whole point of getting paid is by proving value.

And I don't think the scam money will last long, let's see how far people are willing to go for, burning sats at that rate is unsustainable.

if the majority is zapping only to get funded with scam money, then i guess being unsavory is the norm now.

Interestingly, I was looking at some old posts today; it was like at least 90 stackers zapping at peak, now it's like 20-ish on average.

reply

this shows what happens when the rewards pool is large

reply

But this only showed how much stackers were spending, I was talking about how many stackers there were back then. Now it's about 20 - 30 who actually zap, without counting the ones that are lurking.

reply
216 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 11 Sep

I understood what you meant. If you look at the forever stats, you see that we've about half of peak monthly active stackers left, mostly due to CCs. This is a known thing?

But if we see 2x zap volume when rewards are high, then removing subsidy may have removed the incentive for a lot of people to zap on top. So something like: CC introduction made it go from 90 to 45, and subsidy removal (i.e. losing gamed zaps because the pot isn't worth the trouble) made it go from 45 to 30.

I see even less zaps now than last year, but at the same time I also see bigger zaps (noting that that is caused largely by a very small group of stackers.)

But it aligns with content trends too:

  1. higher quality content coming from a smaller group of stackers
  2. poorer quality content (or zero effort content, ie link-only) coming from a larger group of stackers
  3. slop slop slop, and... slop

so there are less stackers writing good content, less stackers zapping, but, we get better content and bigger zaps. Overall, that is not bad, and it can be a tidal thing?

do you have a list? I've been thinking about building a simple bot detector using classical ML (non-LLM) methods

reply

Gimme until tomorrow evening to write and run it because it's midnight here and I'm spent

reply
reply

haha i'm curious what the prompt was that made this

reply

That's in general the best question to ask. I think it's been a year now since Scoresby and I agreed on share prompts, not slop

reply

that's funny!!

reply

👀

reply