Replies (33)
Small fork 🤣
⚡️🦾⚡️
Imagine HODLing instead of zappin......
A lot❗️😆⚡️
84 BTC can’t be right …
For zapalytics I take every zap and exclude any zap over 2 bitcoin and there's 2 accounts that have a ton of fake zaps so I exclude them as well. I'm pretty sure that's an accurate as we can get.
I don’t get it. Is using a custodian for Lightining service really a problem? To me I run my own bitcoin node and self custody. But for lightining it is for payments and I keep relatively small amounts so I don’t bother setting up my own lightining node. Maybe my view will change about it because my view on Bitcoin changed dramatically more than a few times, so who knows :)
84 billion sats sounds like too much
Nice to see this explanation. Thanks carman
Okay thank you for the methodology clarification 🤙
By “fake zaps” do you mean just “wash zapping” oneself?
that’s referred to as “zapsturbation” in the biz.
That’s a much better term. You a writer or something?
shitposter actually. similar but different.
Much more illustrious title, imo.
And future author of Zaptionary, lol
Can't really know if it's fake or someone zapping themselves. For example I just fake zapped this note 1k bitcoin.
If you control the key that signs for your zaps you can fake them because no one can verify if a lightning tx actually happened
If it is fake do we know where it was said to be fakely sent?
It has an invoice in it, but that is also fake haha
I was just thinking the suppos'ed rcvr could flag it as fake.. in theory.
The faker has to be the receiver
Maybe they filtered wash zaps. #[2]alone nearly zapped half of the BTC supply
Impossible to tell, because "zaps" are de-coupled from actual sats.
I can send you LN sats, without them appearing as "zaps".
You can send yourself "zaps", with sats moving from one LN wallet to another (wash-zapping). With your acct (can be detected) or from sockpuppet accounts (cannot be detected).
You can send yourself "zaps", with NO sats moving from / to any LN wallet (fake zaps). From your acct, or from sockpuppets.
Since "zap amount" is now a vanity metric in many clients, people are incentivized to rig the numbers in their favor.
So, it wouldn't surprise me if the real total is lower than both numbers.
Zap validation is also expensive (network requests and computation) and multi-step and also stateful.
If I change my lud, all previous ZAPs now technically should fail validation, unless you change it back. You either need a profile/lud snapshot at the zap time, or to validate zaps instantly (read: race condition and impossible in a decentralised network) and record that outside of Nostr, to the query later.
Zaps are awesome. But they aren’t trustworthy or polished in many ways. Hopefully we can iterate.
Good points, wasn't aware of that.
Created this new graph just for you:
https://stats.nostr.band/#total_zap_amount
The truth is indeed in the middle, our stats say it's 6.7BTC.
It seems like primal doesn't filter fake or invalid zaps, and zapalytics simply has 2x less zaps in their db (300k) then we do (600k).
PoW does not suffer from these problems.
Yep. If you provably burn the sats instead of transfer them them.
It doesn’t solve the double vote issue however.
does anything but kyc solve the "double voute issue"?
I’m not actually sure it has a solution that isn’t centralised - where you have some kind of pre-registration (maybe KYC, but blinded after) - and then maybe vote anonymisation (if blind voting).
Keep in mind double voting isn’t technically just the same identity voting twice (we could detect duplicate reactions from the same pubkey for example), but also someone creating two+ identities and voting a second time.
If you have a closed community of voters, you could perhaps manually share a secret or something - and a double vote would be obvious when you count the people who can vote is less than total votes - at least one fraud vote.
I’m kind of glad anyway, as paper ballots are significantly harder to commit fraud with. Any digital government electronic voting is extremely dangerous and should be rejected as an option.
I could be missing something that may exist.
And your next problem kind of becomes buying voters. Find people who value a money over voting and will sell you their vote.
Australian politicians who speak languages other than English literally target community voters who cannot speak English and give them pre-signed ballots to sign. (To clarify, this is branch stacking and less so normal elections). Illegal - but no one caught has had anything happen.
Democracy is largely an illusion today. It’s not fair. It’s not the voice of people. It’s a game that people exploit - the same people who have power, to give themselves new laws, and to keep the game going.
Slight tangent… however voting is very hard to solve fairly and reliably.
I think that voting is only hard if you keep wanting one vote to mean one person.
I think this dogma doesn't make sense. Some people are "better" than others (on whatever metric you think is important: wisdom, foresight, whatever) and it makes sense for these people to have more of a say in a vote.
PoW is good when all we care about is what we should pay attention to, since it forces anyone that wants your attention to make a provable sacrifice. This means that people that care about their messages will have more "vote power", but that's good.
Prediction markets are good when we want to answer empirical questions about the future. The confident and wealthy will have more "vote power", but confidence is good, and the wealthy part is guaranteed for confident predictors that have good foresight.
Yep. It depends entirely on what the underlying rules and transparency of votes captured are. Formal, informal, for fun, quick poll to help guide a decision.
It’s possible for a poll’s results to be
filtered by votes only from your following/social group. This happens today anyway, as if your poll your discord, the participants can only include those who know about the poll to begin with.
All in all, I don’t really have much trust in polls as a method for capturing meaningful results.
View quoted note →
