No, seeing it too. Liberally using the Mute btn in Gossip.
Lots of things you have to get right: accounting for the routing fees, retries, what happens if one split payment fails but the others succeed, etc.
Simplest way IMO is if all recipients have custodial subaccounts on the node running the LN prism.
But otherwise LN prism is probably too fragile atm.
https://libredirect.github.io will redirect Wikipedia links to a version without popups
Zaps are as good as fiat.
Does 1 USD = 1.5g fine gold? In 1900 yes, now no.
Does a zap = a LN payment? In some cases yes, in some cases no (wash-zapping), and you can never tell the difference.
So if "zaps are good" => "fiat is good"
Some clients let you quasi-delete a post, but cannot guarantee other clients will respect the deletion request.
Broke: Blame the user for bad design
Woke: The design filters for good users
Bespoke: The protocol designer's humor filters for good users
Try Ctrl+Shift+R (clear cache + reload)
I know, I said it in response to
> the best way to support zaps from Mutiny or other web app wallets is to support NWC
To support sending zaps, one needs a Nostr pubkey + NWC or WebLN
To supporting sending plain LN tips from a web app => WebLN
IMO WebLN covers more users and can also support the zap scenario.
How about WebLN?
I imagine not every Mutiny user will have Nostr, but some might have a WebLN extension in their browser, ready to send sats at the click of a btn.
I would show him how easy it is to get sats.
(As I was typing the reply, I saw nostr:note1854cq2r8wggns89je9q2swc9cveg55wu4kv4qkqvpgjd8n5u8xdq3dw4v7 , someone was literally giving away sats on Nostr).
I am using it as one in PoW Pub: https://lab.oak-node.net/powpub
Filtering by event type at subscription level.
If any message goes missing, even across multiple relays, the clients fail gracefully and ignore that trade.
Not if you turn Airplane mode off
Be careful though, you could hurt a socialist's feelz if you win too much.
"Adoption is everything" leads to airdrops.
Adoption w/o understanding what you're getting is dust in the wind.
At the root, it is about the point being argued (i.e. you can still send sats and even "zaps", even if Apple forbids "note zaps")
Yes I realise those 500k sats are the same, but you assume the "fundraiser" account only wants to fundraise in this one specific fundraise event.
How about this:
- if I'm a fake fundraiser and coordinate with my friend Joe the Generous to wash-zap 5 x 500k sats to my "fundraiser", this will earn 1) free hype and followers for me, 2) free hype and followers for Joe the Generous
- if I make it appear that I raised 50 mil sats in this fundraiser (wash-zaps), this will cause hype. More people will actually donate in my next fundraiser (maybe I wash-zap only 45 mil sats then?), but again huge amounts => huge hype => more actual followrs and actual donors. Eventually I can "string along" as many fundraisers as I want, nobody will know what amount is actually donated vs what was wash-zapped, but more and more people will be duped into donating just by the fake numbers alone.
- many more such cases