InstantX/InstantSend

camosoul

camosoul

Well-known member
This branding still doesn't work.

Every crypto has Instant Send. I send any BitClone, and it's sent instantly.

It's just not locked instantly. It waits for blockchain.

Calling it InstantSend in no way describes this as being any different. InstandSend? So? Everything is InstantSend? What? Why say this? It makes no sense? Are you trying to imply that BitClones aren't instantly sent? Because they are... See the problem?

DarkSend == PrivateSend

InstantX != InstantSend
InstantX == SecureSend

This emphasizes the the benefit in the brand name itself, and encourages use.

BitClones' sends are instant, but not secure. SecureSend with DASH, is.

SecureSend tells people why they should give a shit.
InstantSend only confuses people and makes them wonder why you're emphasizing something that is already true of even the most defective crypto...
 
SecureSend makes me think normal TX aren't as secure as this type, just food for thought.

I do agree thought instantX and or instantsend might be a wierd misguided name...

I feel as if the goal of IX was to make cryptos compete with the speed of credit cards and or cash, so to me it has validity as I'm very aware how slow most cryptos actually are, even though alot of them say they are instant. Just my take on things though.
 
...saying, it's not that the sending is instant, maybe more accurate to say it is received and confirmed instantly
 
Whenever something (a crypto-currency, a function, a button, a first-born, ...) has a name, and even more so when an existing name is changed, there's lot's of discussion about it, and it's often quite hard to find consensus.
I see a growing market for a wallet with user-definable names in the future...
smilebreit.gif
 
I'm being serious, guys... The name needs to resemble what it actually does in a clear way. Currently, it's confusing, even misleading, to the point of being troll bait...

"SecureSend" was just a suggestion. The transition from InstantX to InstantSend is already done, if you're watching the testnet thread... And it's confusing to the point of being misleading.

I'm pointing out the problem, not necessarily naming what I said as the solution...

LockSend?
TransLock? Eh, sounds like a gender-confused prison...
TXLock?

Again, as with the multisession mixing being tested... I figure it would become the default method...? I figure, eventually, it won't be anything more than "That's just how DASH works" and isn't an add-on feature with a checkbox. It's only optional for testing?

Needs clarity. Both in implementation, and what it's called.

Every BitClone already has InstantSend. That's not the part of it that we care about, but that's what it's named...
 
Last edited:
I disagree that the term "InstantSend" is misleading. A regular transaction is not instantly locked by nodes, and therefore cannot be considered fully confirmed until you achieve the six confirmations required. As such, it could not be considered instant in that sense. An InstantSend transaction, locked by nodes, can be considered a done deal as soon as you hit "Send". Therefore, the term is a perfect description of what is actually happening.

And to make the two actions, PrivateSend and InstantSend, similar creates a more streamlined, easier to understand UX. I received lots of positive comments on Twitter about this change, with more than a few people saying that it makes more sense.
 
I still prefer InstantSend. Yes we do want to convey that it is a secure zero-confirmation txn, but there isn't really a succinct way to say that, at least not that I've heard. At the end of the day the users just care that whatever is going on under the hood, they can do whatever they need to do instantly.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
I disagree that the term "InstantSend" is misleading. A regular transaction is not instantly locked by nodes, and therefore cannot be considered fully confirmed until you achieve the six confirmations required.
Click to expand...
But it is instantly sent. Does the wallet not show -X.xxxx in red, instantly?

You need to look at it from the perspective of an outsider. All crypto has instant send.

From the user perspective, debit cards are instant, too... but not from the vendor's perspective. It isn't settled for months....

The cluelessness of those who don't consider the vendor are exactly why crypto isn't taking hold but with a few. If yu want the center of the bell curve to accept crypto, you have to think about more than gimmie gimmie gimmie.

You understand incentivizing MNs, right?

If you can't even name the thing after it's function, who's going to see the incentive? After you explain it 20 times? You thin the center of the bell curve has that much of an attention span?

The name has to describe the function, at least a little.

It currently does not. It even incites "uh, why are you claiming that InstantSend is special when everything is instant?" Those who do start to learn immediately think you're being a scammer.

You need to emphasize the part that's actually different and better.

Why would you even get a second glance after doing that? You're driving people away. Only the most hardcore of nerds even notices DASH now.

How are you going to differentiate when you advertise sameness as if it's special? Why would a vendor do anything but roll their eyes and say "oh, another one of those computer ponzi fake money things."

Sure, there are people who won't pay attention. But you're deliberately turning away those who do think even just a little bit...

Even simply person to person... There's nothing that tells a person that DASH lets you hit the button and walk away, and not have to worry about "confirmations."

You're pissing on your own best feature, and would rather argue about it than do something about it.
 
HinnomTX said:
I liked InstantX. A unique name for a unique feature.
Click to expand...
InstantX at least made people ask "WTF does that mean?" and then go find out... I'll give it that. It was also a pretty neat play on the TX terminology. It was catchy that way. But, only to nerds who understood what "TXID" meant...

I agree that it needed a rename. But, InstantSend is several steps backwards instead of forwards.

LockSend?
SecureSend?
TXLock?

Something that actually suggests there's a difference that matters to somebody.

InstantX made people at least ask "WTF is that?" and go find out, maybe.

With InstantSend, we're deliberately trolling ourselves...

"Everything has InstantSend. Even Debit Cards and Cash. So why is it so special that DASH has that, too? So does every BitClone. Oh, you meant to say that it instantly locks the transaction. You mean BitCoin doesn't do that? Really? I never knew, everybody I talk to says it's Libertarian over the Internet money that government isn't a part of, never mentions that Bitcoin has any serious flaws like this, and I never bothered to learn anything else about it... You mean DogeCoina nd LitCoin have it, too? Eh, sounds like you're just attacking other coins to pump your own... I still don't understand because I have no idea how my iPhone works, either, and I'll probably never bother to educate myself about anything, ever. I'm so glad that I spent all this time trying to figure it out and still don't know shit." Said nobody, ever.

"LockSend? As opposed to what? WTF!? Double-spend? You mean NONE of these other forms of payment are actually locked in? Not even Bitcoin? Or any BitClone? No wonder retailers hate it! It's like setting yourself up to give away free stuff! Oh, so that's what confirmations are. Holy crap, that's such a terrible way to do things! I had no idea! Thanks for making it obvious that DASH is different. DASH's way makes way more sense! I may not fully understand it, but I get the idea!" Says most people.
 
Last edited:
camosoul said:
InstantX at least made people ask "WTF does that mean?" and then go find out... I'll give it that. It was also a pretty neat play on the TX terminology. It was catchy that way. But, only to nerds who understood what "TXID" meant...

I agree that it needed a rename. But, InstantSend is several steps backwards instead of forwards.

LockSend?
SecureSend?
TXLock?

Something that actually suggests there's a difference that matters to somebody.

InstantX made people at least ask "WTF is that?" and go find out, maybe.

With InstantSend, we're deliberately trolling ourselves...

"Everything has InstantSend. Even Debit Cards and Cash. So why is it so special that DASH has that, too? So does every BitClone. Oh, you meant to say that it instantly locks the transaction. You mean BitCoin doesn't do that? Really? I never knew, everybody I talk to says it's Libertarian over the Internet money that government isn't a part of, never mentions that Bitcoin has any serious flaws like this, and I never bothered to learn anything else about it... You mean DogeCoina nd LitCoin have it, too? Eh, sounds like you're just attacking other coins to pump your own... I still don't understand because I have no idea how my iPhone works, either, and I'll probably never bother to educate myself about anything, ever. I'm so glad that I spent all this time trying to figure it out and still don't know shit." Said nobody, ever.

"LockSend? As opposed to what? WTF!? Double-spend? You mean NONE of these other forms of payment are actually locked in? Not even Bitcoin? Or any BitClone? No wonder retailers hate it! It's like setting yourself up to give away free stuff! Oh, so that's what confirmations are. Holy crap, that's such a terrible way to do things! I had no idea! Thanks for making it obvious that DASH is different. DASH's way makes way more sense! I may not fully understand it, but I get the idea!" Says most people.
Click to expand...
The problem with "SecureSend" is that it carries the implication that regular transactions are not secure, which is also not a great way to advertise the product. "LockSend" has potential, but to the layman it still doesn't convey the instantaneousness of the transaction. I think we are at the mercy of the English language here, and for the vast majority, "InstantSend" conveys the best (maybe not perfectly) of what the transaction in this way actually is.
 
Another point to add: With Evolution we may not be even needing these terms anymore, so they are very much placeholders, maybe not worth the trouble of long debate over.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
The problem with "SecureSend" is that it carries the implication that regular transactions are not secure
Click to expand...
They're not! I see nothing wrong with implying the truth.
TaoOfSatoshi said:
Another point to add: With Evolution we may not be even needing these terms anymore, so they are very much placeholders, maybe not worth the trouble of long debate over.
Click to expand...
There is still going to have to be a description of it somewhere... What makes DASH good for retail? The feature still needs a name that accurately describes how it's better than BitClones, even if it's the default and transparent to the average derp. Those who are betting the farm on it are going to want an explanation.
TaoOfSatoshi said:
"InstantSend" conveys the best (maybe not perfectly) of what the transaction in this way actually is.
Click to expand...
Can't see the forest with all these damn trees in the way...

No, it doesn't. In fact, it completely avoids mentioning the concept of locking transactions, while describing a feature (instant) that all crypto has and is expected by default... They're all instant, so why is this even being said? If I send bitcoins, that TX is instantly in the (insecure) memory pool. That's how it is. Before Evan invented IX and MNs, DASH did that, too. It still can if you don't check the IX box... Totally instant! Even in --litemode.

Why name it something that doesn't have anything at all to do with what it is and what it does? The English Language has more synonyms than all other languages on Earth put together. I'm sure we can bust out the ol' Thesaurus and come up with something. Point of irony; Thesaurus has no synonyms.

If I named a Waffle Iron "Septic Tank," it would be somewhat confusing to someone who has no idea what a Waffle Iron or a Septic Tank are... And those that do know, have to ask why I would do something so stupid... All it does is generate confusion, and make people wonder why the word "waffle" wasn't involved in a thing that is specifically designed for making waffles. Do you want to eat waffles that come out of the "Septic Tank?" Oh, it's just a brand name, not an actual septic tank... It actually means something completely different than what we named it... I swear! No poo in your waffle!

Why make this hard?
 
Last edited:
Personally, the more I think of it the more I like LockSend actually (and LS as an abbreviation is also slightly better than IS imo).... hmmm..... probably because it's more accurate technically (because that's what actually is going on - tx inputs are locked so that no other tx can use them as its input for some period of time) and I'm a tech guy, you know ;) but is it descriptive enough for normal user? :confused:
 
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason we cannot have all transactions be spendlock/locksend/quickconfirm/lock'n'send/instawhateverX by default? That way, there's no need to name it except in marketing materials, as it is a default function of the coin itself (which would makes the marketing easier and more honest, imo). We could still have the old-fashioned way of spending be available as an advanced option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top