Replying to Avatar unclebobmartin

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.
Avatar
pam 2y ago

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

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.