For now I am just updating the zap button to show the customize zap view, with wording that says “zap bob” to make it clear you’re definitely not zapping a note. Will also have to remove the orange highlight on the zap button, zap listing on notes, and total zap amount on notes. Will also have to remove zap replies / zapvertising. At the end the zap button on notes will only be a shortcut for zapping users.

Replies (64)

Water Blower's avatar
Water Blower 2 years ago
This is a good compromise and let’s continue our progression. The rest of the world will catch up eventually.
Will we be able to send a message with profile zaps? A gif? YouTube link for a video that renders.
What about a progressive web app. Instead of bending the knee to redesign the functionality to meet the expectations of a corp instead of the usage of the market place.
In the meantime, hopefully they’ll listen to feedback like this. I do think if we can convince them that it’s in their interests to support Lightning payments, they’ll do it eventually. image
Thank you sir. I have the benefit of experience here having worked there. This feedback goes directly to the engineering team responsible to evaluate and prioritize accordingly. I think we can sometimes get ahead of ourselves and assume it’s obvious that Bitcoin and Lightning should be supported. It’s certainly *not* obvious to everyone. We can’t say both: - “we’re so early!” and - “Nooooo Apple should support Lightning zaps, it’s obvious, noooooo”. The two statements are mutually exclusive. The solution is time and explaining the rational case for bitcoin, and when speaking to a for-profit company, making it clear why it’s a win-win.
:P's avatar
:P 2 years ago
Can you add a view note in browser button?!
Gregor's avatar
Gregor 2 years ago
I fully agree, thanks for adding the context!
They simply took a closer look at the feature, and found that it clearly violates one of their rules for monetization (which is that tips associated directly with content must use in-app purchase). This does happen. Most people don’t realize that a number of years back there was a large outcry at the length of app review times. They fixed it, and I’m pretty sure that was partially by not looking as closely at everything an update does. I don’t think anyone should infer there’s any prejudice towards bitcoin or that there’s going to be any wider look at BTC-oriented apps. Many folks definitely seem to be drawing the wrong conclusions here IMO, from what I’ve seen in the last week.
The true original definition of fascism by Mussolini is "The marriage of private business and government." He is the person that coined the term, so I go with this definition. Apple censoring at the request or order of the government would be fascism.
> it clearly violates one of their rules for monetization (which is that tips associated directly with content must use in-app purchase) This is the assessment where I disagree. Tips are *not* associated with purchasing, selling, or receiving content (damus has not implemented e.g. content paywall/similar functionality). > If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase There are *no* unlock mechanisms. > Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency wallets, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a). There are *no* unlock, or purchasing mechanisms. Apple must understand there is a double standard applied in the case of Damus. If you ban voluntary peer to peer tips, Apple must also ban venmo, and zelle.
Apple aren’t objecting to tips. They’re objecting to the zap button underneath each piece of content. And they’ve had a rule that specifies you can’t do that for some time. Their rules are maddeningly complex but this one is right there in plain sight: image
no, if the zap goes has a reference to the note then it’s not a profile zap 😕
C'est hallucinant qu'Apple vous injonctevl ce qu'il faut faire ou pas jusqu'à rendre presqu'invisible une part de votre selon moi personner n'a le droit de me dire j'ai à faire ou pas.
Once again, this is the key point of objection. Notes are not NFTs. Notes are not owned if lightning is tipped directly to a LN address. Tips happens peer-to-peer outside nostr. Nostr client simply provides notes, and information of the poster for all others. The tip is 1) completely optional 2) 100% go to receiver of the gift As explicitly stated in the text you shared.
What happens if a simple like triggers such a "monetary gift"? What if you have a bot running somewhere, listening for your likes, and each time you like a note it finds the LN Address of the author and tips some sats. Would Apple ban likes? Would Apple even whether this is happening or not? View quoted note →
I think I’ll stop arguing here, as Apple’s language - which is intentionally broad with the ‘associated’ term being key here - is clear to me, and it’s equally clear I’m not convincing you otherwise. I don’t like it, I hope they change it, but it is the reality. We won’t change their mind by telling them their own rule is saying something else.
I hear you, and appreciate the feedback since you know the company well. Agree company can do what they want. I think the long-term solution could be to open the eyes of a leader in-house of the opportunity of LN.