pull down to refresh
Today, downzapping is the only tool stackers have to fight scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters.
Really strange to hear you say that since you are using downzaps to cover up scam reports instead of using them against the scammers?... I've been trying to protect the community against Justin Shocknet draining their sleeping Lightning wallets, and you've been downzapping my warning:
Actually. I'm downzapping your bullshit.
Why?
- It's completely incoherent and it reads to me like a knotzi-style psyop where your desire to destroy seems to justify all means.
- It feels to me like you're taking this very far now - too far for my taste - with endless doubling down.
I only downzap your boosts though and not all of it. I don't wish to censor nor can I afford it, but I do wish to at least undo some of the rank manipulation you're buying, especially on something so poor quality. It's not personal, even though to me it reflects poorly on you personally.
It also reflects poorly on SN to have that top ranked.
If you receive a Lightning payment, your node MUST stay synced with the Bitcoin network to protect against theft. If your phone goes offline, your channel peer can publish an old transaction state that drains your Lightning balance.
How is this warning "completely incoherent"? What corrections would you like to add?
For one, you cannot receive a lightning payment to your node if you're offline, so it's a non-issue. The sending node will construct an onion path and the payment will time out because the handshake protocol is interactive. Second, you anyway need a watchtower construct if your phone client has inbound liquidity from nodes other than your own.
What does that have to do with what Justin is saying? Justin has forever been saying that the interface to LN must run on a (your) server and then the phone interface should be a light client. This is very similar to the bArk lightning bridge you're a fan of, and you're both bickering over competing tradeoffs and design choices, except with increasing escalation into the absurd.
I don't know why you feel like you should write accusations as if you're Luke. You're a smart guy. Respected. Why are you on a villain/retardation arc?
For one, you cannot receive a lightning payment to your node if you're offline
Correct, I clearly specified this condition that the user must have previously received funds on lightning. Read my post again:
If you receive a Lightning payment, your node MUST stay synced with the Bitcoin network to protect against theft.
- The first premise is that only someone who has previously received a Lightning payment is vulnerable to being drained.
- The second premise is that your channel is only vulnerable if your node does not stay synced
So there's no corrections for me to make, as my warning is already coherent.
Second, you anyway need a watchtower
I acknowledge watchtowers as a (trusted) fallback.
It's classic Non sequitur and it would surprise me if you don't know it. Your conclusion simply does not align with your technical analysis. It's exactly the same shit that the knotzis were doing and it's kinda crazy to me to see you copying that bullshit.
To each their own though. I still hope that former non-capitalized @kruw is also still somewhere in there, because that one was smarter and would influence for real, rather than making people puke.
The only scammer is you, everyone can read what I wrote, and that its not what you claim I wrote.... you're just an illiterate clown who literally does what you accuse me of doing... promoting mobile slop that will lose users funds.
I'm not pushing mobile clients, I don't work on Ark, I build a REAL ALWAYS ONLINE LIGHTNING NODE FOR SERVERS... I shit on mobile lightning constantly... and everyone knows that.
Keep projecting and lying, this is great for me, everyone can see how retarded you are... go back to bitcointalk and pretending the Satoshi operators care about your scam coinjoins and fake L2.
I just had to look up what a “concern troll” was. Very interesting! I’ve been aware of this concept, but never knew there was a term for it. Yeah, I feel like concern trolls are among my greatest downzapping prey. If they’re not concern trolls, they’re just folks making straw man arguments, so either way they’re cooking up good downzap fodder. I agree with @Tef that downzaps over disagreements is certainly collateral damage for all of this though. Maybe the virtues and vices of downzaps are all just an examples of the value of multiple venues for public discourse.
@K00b, What do you think about this post? Does it look like a "scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters" kind of post to you? It's downzappd 1000.
Why?
Because someone does not like it? I don't think so. If someone doesn't like it, he can comment here and express his disagreement.
They could and I hope they do, but given the current algorithm, it's also acceptable for them to attempt to curate their and others' experiences by downzapping content - just like it's acceptable for the anyone who agrees with you to upzap this content.
Alright, your position is clear. You'd rather see stackers fighting each other with downzaps than trying to find a better and more acceptable solution. That's fair enough. Your forum, your rules.
do you think upzapping your own content with an alt account(s) is fair?
When did I say that "upzapping your own content with an alt account(s) is fair"?
You'd rather see stackers fighting each other with downzaps than trying to find a better and more acceptable solution.
There you go reading other people's minds again. This time mine.
When did I say that "upzapping your own content with an alt account(s) is fair"?
I never said you did. Please answer the question though.
No, I don't think it's fair, for sure.
There you go reading other people's minds again. This time mine.
Don't you realize that's a ridiculous argument? I don't need to read anyone's mind to make a logical deduction. I look at the facts and draw a logical conclusion. I'm not stupid. Come on, man. I used to respect your opinions and the way you reason, but with the way you're communicating now, I'm starting to question everything. Maybe I was wrong.
No, I don't think it's fair, for sure.
So you've never done it?
I don't need to read anyone's mind to make a logical deduction.
You're are telling me what I think and what I intend to do and I disagree. Nowhere did I say what you said I'd "rather see."
I'm starting to question everything.
That's a good habit.
Maybe I was wrong.
While you're questioning everything, you may want to question whether you're wrong right now too.
I'd guess it's because this has been discussed extensively over the last week (e.g. there's already a post on the frontpage discussing related issues), let alone over the last months, and whoever downzapped it is upset at seeing more, in their view, naive takes on what @k00b should do.
Because someone does not like it? I don't think so.
It's going to be very hard having a productive discussion when we assume what's in other people's heads.
If someone doesn't like it, he can comment here and express his disagreement.
They could and I hope they do, but given the current algorithm, it's also acceptable for them to attempt to curate their and others' experiences by downzapping content - just like it's acceptable for the anyone who agrees with you to upzap this content.
Back then, scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters couldn't boost and self zap, or get other scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters to zap their posts into prominent visibility. Back then, we had trust weighting zaps/boosts, preventing scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters from gaining visibility disproportionate to what our version of consensus decided.
Today, downzapping is the only tool stackers have to fight scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters.
Unless you've read the mind of every downzapper, we don't know this to be true. It probably is true sometimes, but I personally downzap scams, trolls, bots, and nutters because I want to save other people from drowning in scams, trolls, bots, and nutters.
This doesn't solve the problem you have as well as you think it does. I can just spin up a fresh one-off account, give a reason like "hahahahaha," and downzap. These problems aren't present for lack of me thinking about them. These problems aren't as trivial as "@k00b should just do xyz. problem solved."
I think, nay I am fairly certain, downzapping is less of a problem than scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters boosting and zapping themselves/each other. Unless of course, one is a scammer, troll, bot, or nutter. So, we will be prioritizing fixes for scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters boosting and zapping themselves/each other.