Digg/Reddit like News site. Voting is based on Bitcoins!

[PrintCoins]

UPDATE:
Added RSS feeds to all lists

UPDATE:
Vote this up on hacker news:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507448

==TODO list==
* RSS feeds
* Widget to add the coinsmack.com thumbs up to external websites
* Filtering by link domain - this will make it so all stuff posted to say youtube.com can be seen in one sorted list.
* Adding no-follow to any posts that have zero BTC to keep spammers from getting any google love.
* Top category list (sorted by the sum of btc in each category)
* Hiding (but with the ability to reveal) hot posts after 30 items. I don't think I will do paging, and all lists will get cut off after maybe 100 items.
* Automated daily payouts (currently it is pretty manual and not daily).
* Creating a simple icon for the site (I am thinking someone smacking a coin down on a table). Designers are welcome to offer whatever they like.
* Hidden service on tor
---

I created a site where you can post links, videos, images, and blobs of text (html allowed).

It works much like most social news sites where visitors can vote up stories they like to the home page in various different categories. The difference is that the voting is in bitcoins in increments of 0.001 units. 50% of the bitcoins received go to the poster of the article.

Posting and voting up articles is an anonymous process, and no login is needed (also IP addresses & sessions are not recorded). For those that are into Tor, onion links are welcome and are marked with an onion icon. Hopefully this will help with the discovery of content on the onion network.




You can check out the site at http://coinsmack.com . It is still unpolished (aka beta), and I would be happy to hear any feedback as to how it could be improved.

[1714170854]

1714170854

[1714170854]

1714170854

[1714170854]

1714170854

[HostFat]

You should open it as hidden service too

[FreeMoney]

Excellent.

I'm noticing a lot of situations where counting 0 confirmations as good has virtually 0 risk, but people aren't doing it anyway. This is one of those places.

[PrintCoins]

You should open it as hidden service too

I plan on it, just in the process of reading through the documentation of how to do it.

Seals with Clubs is the winner of the first post (not by myself). I sent a vote up to it.

If the amount doesn't immediately show up on the up vote button, but is on the blockchain, just click the thumbs up button to force it to update.

Excellent.

I'm noticing a lot of situations where counting 0 confirmations as good has virtually 0 risk, but people aren't doing it anyway. This is one of those places.

Thanks, do you know of any web services that I can get an update for the balance of an address with 0 confirms.

[rjk]

Sweet service! I see potential here.

[FreeMoney]

Thanks, do you know of any web services that I can get an update for the balance of an address with 0 confirms.

Good question, maybe that's why many people don't take 0.

bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin and blockchain.info have a list of unconfirmed tx, I don't know how you'd use that info easily though.

[FreeMoney]

Are you taking 1 confirm right now? I have one, but it isn't updated.

Updated.

[FreeMoney]

Another thought, I like that you can sort by Hot (most coin) and New, but eventually Hot will essentially mean old because they've had so much more time to get paid up.

You could rename Hot to something else (highest, most, richest?) and make Hot mean [Coins/age] so new trending things will spend some time on top but drop as they age faster than they pay.

And... I just went to looks again. This is what you do isn't it? Brilliant (aka great minds think alike).

[PrintCoins]

Are you taking 1 confirm right now? I have one, but it isn't updated.

I am working off of blockexplorer.com's api, so when it appears there, it shows up on my site. It doesn't appear to have any way of adjust confirmations.

If it appear on that site, just press the thumbs up button, and it will force a refetch of the status.

[Rejinx]

Great idea.  But I think due to the high price of Bitcoin you may need to add one more 0 so more like: 0.0001 and your take waaaaay to high.  I wouldn't use this service unless your take was less then 10%.  Also,  This would be a great use of an Altcoin.  Could be VoteCoin.  

Just my 2 Bitcents  

[PrintCoins]

Another thought, I like that you can sort by Hot (most coin) and New, but eventually Hot will essentially mean old because they've had so much more time to get paid up.

You could rename Hot to something else (highest, most, richest?) and make Hot mean [Coins/age] so new trending things will spend some time on top but drop as they age faster than they pay.

And... I just went to looks again. This is what you do isn't it? Brilliant (aka great minds think alike).

There are three groupings: Hot, New, and Top. Hot is the default.

Hot = BTC/SqareRoot(time);
New = Time
Top = BTC

So stuff will decay on the hot page, and cost more over time to keep up there, but since it uses the square root of time, this effect is minimized on larger time scales.

[rjk]

One smaller problem, the link "Vote up links, images, and articles with bitcoins." goes to bitcoins.org, should be bitcoin.org.

[PrintCoins]

Great idea.  But I think due to the high price of Bitcoin you may need to add one more 0 so more like: 0.0001 and your take waaaaay to high.  I wouldn't use this service unless your take was less then 10%.  Also,  This would be a great use of an Altcoin.  Could be VoteCoin.  

Just my 2 Bitcents  

It actually takes in any decimal value, and uses that for sorting. The 0.001 is just for display convenience. Also, with the normal fee for transactions something around 0.0005, it seemed to be the most reasonable amount.

Also 0.001BTC = $0.0062 so it about half a penny.

[PrintCoins]

One smaller problem, the link "Vote up links, images, and articles with bitcoins." goes to bitcoins.org, should be bitcoin.org.

Awesome, good catch.

[SgtSpike]

Agree that your take is too high.  It should be something like 80/20 author/you, or 90/10.  50/50 is greedy, IMO.

Also, ditch the serif font - it doesn't look good on the web!

[arsenische]

Great, clean and easy to use site! I wanted to do something similar too

Btw, I'd add something like ".submit_type_button { cursor:pointer; }" to the stylesheet.

[nmat]

The problem is that you will end up running an ads-only website. Companies will literally pay to put their brand on top and the interesting content will probably end up at the bottom.

[arsenische]

The problem is that you will end up running an ads-only website. Companies will literally pay to put their brand on top and the interesting content will probably end up at the bottom.

yet another million dollar page? I'd like to have one

[Rejinx]

Great idea.  But I think due to the high price of Bitcoin you may need to add one more 0 so more like: 0.0001 and your take waaaaay to high.  I wouldn't use this service unless your take was less then 10%.  Also,  This would be a great use of an Altcoin.  Could be VoteCoin.  

Just my 2 Bitcents  

It actually takes in any decimal value, and uses that for sorting. The 0.001 is just for display convenience. Also, with the normal fee for transactions something around 0.0005, it seemed to be the most reasonable amount.

Also 0.001BTC = $0.0062 so it about half a penny.

The transaction fee is a big issue when dealing micro transactions.  I think that is why this is the perfect use for an altcoin.

[PrintCoins]

Agree that your take is too high.  It should be something like 80/20 author/you, or 90/10.  50/50 is greedy, IMO.

Also, ditch the serif font - it doesn't look good on the web!

Good call. Now 80/20. Site text will update tomorrow.