I have a contrarian view on this: I think it could actually be an educational choice. Some people think that it's PoW that makes txs "valid". It's not: it's your own validating full node, independently. PoW just confirms vs doublespends, but cannot turn invalid stuff into valid.https://twitter.com/AnselLindner/status/1006149971450712064 …
-
Show this thread
-
I would call (valid) 0-confs tx "validated". Making very clear that they are NOT SAFE at all against doublespending (otherwise we wouldn't need a blockchain in the first place). But "verified" could do.
6 replies 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @giacomozucco
The fact that a tx is not double spent is part of the validation isn't it? In that sense, it's not proven finally valid until mined.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whatcanudoman
I guess that, as w/ any terminological choice, it's a matter of agreement/custom. I think that including the confirmation part inside the notion of "valid" could foster the confusion about the different security models (your full node vs counterfeits, miners vs doublespends).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @giacomozucco
I would say the possible confusion of calling a tx valid even though it could be reversed outweighs the confusion you're mentioning. This is really just semantic in the end.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whatcanudoman @giacomozucco
Txs can be determined valid or invalid independent of blocks. Headers can be determined valid or invalid independent of blocks (internal txs). Blocks can be determined valid or invalid. A chain of blocks can be weak or strong, but that can change, and tx confirmedness follows.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Determination of strength and therefore confirmedness is part of the verification process, but is unique in that it is relative not to the finite set of dependent objects but to the infinite potential of siblings. Confirmation is distinct from validation due to lack of finality.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @evoskuil @whatcanudoman
So here you are using "verification" as "validation"+"confirmation". The (valid) 0-conf should probably be labeled as "validated" instead of "verified". I tend to agree w/ your terminology proposal.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @giacomozucco @whatcanudoman
It’s an interesting challenge to devise a rational taxonomy that maximizes use of existing informally-defined terms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I like "valid" & "confirmed", and making sure people understand that it's a 2-step process. "validated" & "verified" both sound too similar to "valid" to me
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Note that this problem applies to fiat too. A merchant needs to check if your 100-dollar bill is legit (valid) before he can accept it (tx confirmed). But most people take the validation part for granted.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
