Message-ID: <1437790691.2111.3.camel@yahoo.com>
From: gb <kiwigb@yahoo.com>
To: Vincent Truong <vincent.truong@procabiak.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:18:11 +1200
In-Reply-To: <CACrzPenbkh86bW9GQe1M4Zt1OxDTQNeMU6osatRDEvcwOyxHAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <l.com@mac.com> <D472C05D-7164-4ED1-B571-94415AD8E60F@gmail.com>
	<346D4CE0-E00D-4ABB-B131-EFA1416CB20C@me.com>
	<29363BE6-72A7-4D06-A974-C52BA12FD8BD@gmail.com>
	<55FFBC8F-A3C9-4109-89C7-AC359FBBD478@me.com>
	<4734381C-2000-4D9B-9099-DDE3D38D64A3@me.com>
	<DEF9C610-2FBC-40C1-9AFA-9E91903C7F96@petertodd.org>
	<DFA3CCE4-52F7-4D63-8982-2EB133AB6EAA@me.com>
	<B8F9DE4B-A8AA-490D-991B-11C28B2AA527@gmail.com>
	<D7EE14EC-B36D-43F2-8CEC-B63443FBBCA8@me.com>
	<0E15E07E-E21C-4541-869A-3C34CBA35774@gmail.com>
	<9AC88C7C-4BA4-4DF2-913F-9DC6874BD19D@me.com>
	<83982C1D-4FE6-4A5C-BC93-BFBD9756F3D2@gmail.com>
	<COL131-DS24D730A430CE77D648AE9CCD810@phx.gbl>
	<55B1FBCE.1080002@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<CABm2gDqK0qd_JNHCUrnz4L1axG99i9=M7DjCQWatE3Lf0HOiyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrzPenbkh86bW9GQe1M4Zt1OxDTQNeMU6osatRDEvcwOyxHAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin, Perceptions, and Expectations
Precedence: list


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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev