š
Original date posted:2015-07-24
š Original message:Validated - (seen on network)
Settled/Cleared - 1 conf
Finalised - 6 confs
On Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> "Fast transactions"
> Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is
> 'instant' by comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is still very
> instant because wallets still send notifications/pings when
> transactions are first seen, not when it goes into a block. We
> shouldn't mislead people into thinking a transaction literally takes
> 10 minutes to travel the globe.
>
> Maybe this feels like PR speak. But being too humble about Bitcoin's
> attributes isn't a good idea either.
>
> If we're going to look at perception, image and expectations, perhaps
> we can start to look at redefining some terminology too. Like
> confirmations, which is an arbitrary concept. Where possible we should
> describe it with finance terminology.
>
> "0 conf transaction"
> 0 conf is the 'transaction' - just the act of making an exchange. It
> doesn't imply safe and I believe using the word 'settle' in place of
> confirmations will automatically click with merchants.
>
> "1st conf"
> A 'confirmation' is a 'settlement'. If it is 'settled', it implies
> final (except by court order), whereas confirmation usually means 'ah,
> I've seen it come through'. I rarely hear any sales clerk call credit
> card transactions confirmed. More often you will hear 'approved'
> instead. Although 1st conf can be overtaken, so...
>
> "n confirmations"
> This term can probably stay since I can't come up with a better word.
> Settlements only happen once, putting a number next to it breaks the
> meaning of the word. "Settled with 4 confirmations" seems pretty
> clear. Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless
> number we ought to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability)
> and go by 'confidence'. "Settled with 92% confidence." Or we can pick
> an arbitrary number like 6 and use 'settling...' and 'settled' when
> reached.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
gb [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j0ā¦u0kje
2023-06-07 17:43:13
in reply to nevent1qā¦j2hw
Author Public Key
npub1j0cee8lvw7v75c0vfsgfpt5xv8qmr3xzhlwpg9lestngmzwu0u9s6u0kjePublished at
2023-06-07 17:43:13Event JSON
{
"id": "884d49f07556beed7872b322ef63940d666f5c34de38d67a2ba481b052ea06ca",
"pubkey": "93f19c9fec7799ea61ec4c1090ae8661c1b1c4c2bfdc1417f982e68d89dc7f0b",
"created_at": 1686152593,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8be3076e32d66a0aa9f9269417c0ac594ac908dca5122a80b2c7bc73c83dd7cb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0d153d67db6712e21aa0a8e3f2f0f30b68a4a40079b20d22a0b2a43a311cbb89",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"43d409a3ebd823071d562a2252a9126d5cba7aee3ffea64cf3e28e252af0a8e8"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-07-24\nš Original message:Validated - (seen on network) \n\nSettled/Cleared - 1 conf\n\nFinalised - 6 confs\n\nOn Sat, 2015-07-25 at 00:37 +1000, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \"Fast transactions\"\n\u003e Fast transactions implies it is slower than Visa, and Visa is\n\u003e 'instant' by comparison from the spender's POV. Bitcoin is still very\n\u003e instant because wallets still send notifications/pings when\n\u003e transactions are first seen, not when it goes into a block. We\n\u003e shouldn't mislead people into thinking a transaction literally takes\n\u003e 10 minutes to travel the globe.\n\u003e \n\u003e Maybe this feels like PR speak. But being too humble about Bitcoin's\n\u003e attributes isn't a good idea either.\n\u003e \n\u003e If we're going to look at perception, image and expectations, perhaps\n\u003e we can start to look at redefining some terminology too. Like\n\u003e confirmations, which is an arbitrary concept. Where possible we should\n\u003e describe it with finance terminology.\n\u003e \n\u003e \"0 conf transaction\"\n\u003e 0 conf is the 'transaction' - just the act of making an exchange. It\n\u003e doesn't imply safe and I believe using the word 'settle' in place of\n\u003e confirmations will automatically click with merchants.\n\u003e \n\u003e \"1st conf\"\n\u003e A 'confirmation' is a 'settlement'. If it is 'settled', it implies\n\u003e final (except by court order), whereas confirmation usually means 'ah,\n\u003e I've seen it come through'. I rarely hear any sales clerk call credit\n\u003e card transactions confirmed. More often you will hear 'approved'\n\u003e instead. Although 1st conf can be overtaken, so...\n\u003e \n\u003e \"n confirmations\"\n\u003e This term can probably stay since I can't come up with a better word.\n\u003e Settlements only happen once, putting a number next to it breaks the\n\u003e meaning of the word. \"Settled with 4 confirmations\" seems pretty\n\u003e clear. Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless\n\u003e number we ought to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability)\n\u003e and go by 'confidence'. \"Settled with 92% confidence.\" Or we can pick\n\u003e an arbitrary number like 6 and use 'settling...' and 'settled' when\n\u003e reached.\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "2d8254d456c6c4fc5d05669f37b084a08f45dd1f86a9699edc815ee30a4fc3a008685cb8343295e7d196d444fe543356f4a61f2e5cf6e29cb8f34f19a0ef2d9b"
}