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

[PrintCoins]

isn't Reddit open-source or something ?

The comments have to be branched to make it look like reddit.

It does that already:
http://coinsmack.com/posts/Gaming/T-Rex-vs-Kong (has a nested comment)

Keep in mind it is like reddit/digg/hacker news, but it isn't using any of the same code and has some of its own quirks.

[PrintCoins]

Vote up at on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ouw2q/redditdigg_like_clone_vote_up_posts_with_0001/

[PrintCoins]

Also, please vote up on hacker news:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507448

[dree12]

I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.

1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.

2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.

a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)

b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.

c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.

1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.

2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.

a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)

b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.

c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.

I love the #1 idea. Not too keen on the lottery idea, though. Sorry, dree12. +1 for b & c.

Keep the suggestion flowing on this service. I feel it has great potential for Bitcoin.

~Bruno~

[SgtSpike]

I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.

1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.

2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.

a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)

b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.

c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.

1) Maybe wait til there is a problem with spam posts?  I agree that sending a small amount of Bitcoin would be a prime way to keep bots out though.
2) Agreed, can't hurt to have QR codes.
a) Eh?  You can vote something up for 0.001 BTC.  Less than a penny.  Is that really a lot?
b) Agreed.  All the serif fonts on the site need to be changed to sans-serif.  Serif looks terrible on webpages.
c) Agreed.

[PrintCoins]

Also, please vote up on hacker news:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507448

Holy cow! It is already #11 on hacker news!

[Valalvax]

Why am I just hearing about this? This has potential

[SgtSpike]

One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...

It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead.  I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins?  It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.

What's the solution?  I haven't a clue.  You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place.  You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway.  Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.

Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner?  So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003.  Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050.  This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.

Just some thoughts.  I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.

[PrintCoins]

One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...

It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead.  I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins?  It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.

What's the solution?  I haven't a clue.  You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place.  You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway.  Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.

Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner?  So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003.  Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050.  This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.

Just some thoughts.  I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.

That is a pretty good idea. I might not change the display (it is good to know the exact amount put in), but I may adjust the sorting algorithm for hot to do something like this (anti-exponent). Time is a huge factor right now as well. It is easy to spend a little to get on top of something from a day or two ago.

I am surprised that people are spending the equivalent of $1 to put dinosaur pictures up on the home page, but I like it. I was afraid it would just be ads.

[RaggedMonk]

Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner?  So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003.  Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050.  This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.

Great idea

[PrintCoins]

Something awful user did a hack on the site where they injected a close tag into the category selector, preventing other users from posting for a while.

It isn't a meaningful site until something awful hacks it.

[SgtSpike]

Clever.  At least it wasn't a more malicious attack.

[PrintCoins]

Clever.  At least it wasn't a more malicious attack.

There really isn't a whole lot of maliciousness that can be done on the site. The db works on an insert only basis, so nothing is every overwritten, and there is no sensitive data on the machine (no passwords, private keys, etc).

Mostly users can only do some front end funkyness, and I think this is the only place I didn't sanitize what was entered (I built the select element directly from stuff from the db like a fool).

[dree12]

One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...

It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead.  I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins?  It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.

What's the solution?  I haven't a clue.  You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place.  You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway.  Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.

Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner?  So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003.  Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050.  This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.

Just some thoughts.  I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.

That is a pretty good idea. I might not change the display (it is good to know the exact amount put in), but I may adjust the sorting algorithm for hot to do something like this (anti-exponent). Time is a huge factor right now as well. It is easy to spend a little to get on top of something from a day or two ago.

I am surprised that people are spending the equivalent of $1 to put dinosaur pictures up on the home page, but I like it. I was afraid it would just be ads.

This is not a good idea. Because it is impossible to prove who owns how many bitcoins, any person can split the 0.009 to 9 0.001 and send those smaller denominations. Unless a method to resolve this is developed, it probably won't work very well.

[SgtSpike]

One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...

It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead.  I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins?  It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.

What's the solution?  I haven't a clue.  You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place.  You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway.  Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.

Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner?  So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003.  Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050.  This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.

Just some thoughts.  I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.

That is a pretty good idea. I might not change the display (it is good to know the exact amount put in), but I may adjust the sorting algorithm for hot to do something like this (anti-exponent). Time is a huge factor right now as well. It is easy to spend a little to get on top of something from a day or two ago.

I am surprised that people are spending the equivalent of $1 to put dinosaur pictures up on the home page, but I like it. I was afraid it would just be ads.

This is not a good idea. Because it is impossible to prove who owns how many bitcoins, any person can split the 0.009 to 9 0.001 and send those smaller denominations. Unless a method to resolve this is developed, it probably won't work very well.

Yes, that's a good point too.

[PrintCoins]

For those that are interested, I added RSS feeds to all lists on the site.

So you can have your rss reader track the newest, hotest, or top items in any category.

[FreeMoney]

Widget to add the coinsmack.com thumbs up to external websites

This would be great, but it seems like a huge security risk. Is there some way to make sure the site hosting the widget doesn't switch out addresses? It wouldn't seem so.

I plan on giving them a cut of the action as well. Also, the widget would be to vote up their stuff, and make it more popular on coinsmack. This would benefit them (probably more than being a scammer).

I think it would be more of a reputation risk for them rather than a security risk for myself (I wouldn't lose much because of them BSing on their website).

That makes sense.

[FreeMoney]

I think charging even .001 for posting is bad. Finding great stuff and showing it to us is now a great way for someone to get their first coins. If spam gets to be a problem make a checkbox for "hide 0BTC items"

[cunicula]

There was in the original design a down button. Down votes were counted twice what up votes were counted, and nothing went to the poster. The down vote would be another address for the post.

You are completely missing the point.

When staring at the facebook "like" icon, how often have you wished for a "dislike" icon that might link to a "hatebook" instead?
If you are me, this occurs several times a day. I have no facebook page, but I am ready to sign up for hatebook right now.

Your site's potential profitability is directly proportional to the amount of attention paid to it. Hateful stuff attracts attention.

I propose that you monetize social network connections emerging from common hate. This is an under-exploited niche in my view.