1. If someone wants to put `Only-Zaps` into their client, and if their users want to turn it on, it's a free nostr.

2. I like likes. I'll continue to support them in more-speech, and continue to send them. It's a free nostr.

3. Bandwidth:

a. If every event causes Nl likes, then total bandwidth is E*(Nl+1). That could get high.

b. If every event causes Nz zap receipts, then total bandwidth is E*(Nz+1). Still high.

c. If Nz ~= Nl then there is no savings in throughput.

d. Zap receipts can be more expensive to process than likes. (e.g. more-speech does not signature check kind:7)

3. Bandwidth solutions: If we are really concerned about the bandwidth of kind:7 (likes), then we could invent some kind of piggyback scheme in which likes are held by the client and tacked on to the next outgoing note. e.g. a "likes" tag that takes an array of liked event ids. Clients could even limit these to once per hour or so. -- IF we were worried about bandwidth.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

So interesting to me to get this kind of insight into development.

What are your thoughts on Nostr Wallet Connect. which allows nostr clients to connect to lightning wallets and trigger payments through the NIP47 spec?

The goal is to completely remove the friction to zap and make it simple to implement for clients as it is just another event.

Nip-47. Once a majority of wallets support it, it'll be great.

>From: bumi<-DerekRoss at 04/21/23 12:11:08 on wss://relay.damus.io

>---------------

>What are your thoughts on Nostr Wallet Connect. which allows nostr clients to connect to lightning wallets and trigger payments through the NIP47 spec?

>The goal is to completely remove the friction to zap and make it simple to implement for clients as it is just another event.

I have not read nip47 but often seamless process increases usage

Hey, #[1],

ZAPPPPED you because I like 'likes' too...

As you've said, it's a free nostr... What is it about voluntaryism so many don't seem to get? How about let you do you, but let me do me?πŸ™πŸ˜πŸ’œ

I'm all for having a full spectrum of responses available-

* Just ignore that yahoo...

* Like

* ⚑ Zap

* Comment

* Boost

* Emojify

* Any combination of the above

And as you've pointed out, surely there are design paths to dealing with any fallout of freedom?

Thanks for your observations, I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger...πŸ™πŸ˜πŸ’œπŸ˜†πŸ‘

Hey, #[1],

ZAPPPPED you because I like 'likes' too...

#[0]

As you've said, it's a free nostr... What is it about voluntaryism so many don't seem to get? How about let you do you, but let me do me?πŸ™πŸ˜πŸ’œ

I'm all for having a full spectrum of responses available-

* Just ignore that yahoo...

* Like

* ⚑ Zap

* Comment

* Boost

* Emojify

* Any combination of the above

And as you've pointed out, surely there are design paths to dealing with any fallout of freedom?

Thanks for your observations, I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger...πŸ™πŸ˜πŸ’œπŸ˜†πŸ‘

Love that this note had formulas that eases up explanation. Zapped! I love zaps and am indifferent to likes. I won’t have more opinions in the absence of like. I doubt zaps replaces human reaction to likes But I also don’t represent most user behaviour. Out there :

1. Likes are often used to define engagement score on influencers - so it can lead to fake likes, bots

2. Likes are used in algorithms to boost ratings and visibility of their posts - in traditional social media - so it has a negative sentiments

3. Psychology impact of needing to be liked esp younger generation - we don’t know yet the impact of needing more zaps

4. It may or may not cause users to be lazier to comment / zap

5. It most likely could reduce the usage of zaps

I’m sure there’s more. I’m indifferent, but hope this gives a wider perspective on both sides