Replacing "pending" terminology once and for all

After some marathon debates on Discord, Nanocrawler and most other Nano services still use the term "pending" and can mislead new users into thinking their transactions haven't been confirmed and can be reversed. At this point, I think any more community debate is pointless, and the Nano Foundation should just make a decision on the best terminology to replace "pending" once and for all before the next waves of new users start panicking.

2 Likes

Maybe it could be replaced by "waiting signature", I think this denotes it is up to the user to sign the transaction to get his Nanos. Let me know what do you think. :smile:

  1. Received
    and
  2. Spendable

Received as it’s now on the ledger as yours
Spendable as you can only transfer once the receive block is signed.

The last thing I heard was to replace pending with delivered to make the whole process similar to what people are used to in the real world. Sent -> Delivered -> Received
That would result in as few changes possible of existing services.

14 Likes

That’s not ideal because newbies would have no idea whether the transaction is confirmed or not. Here are the key semantics that the ideal terminology should convey:

  1. Receiving users know with absolute certainty that the “send” transactions have been confirmed and are irreversible.

  2. To retrieve the funds requires users to enable their wallets to perform the receive block.

Both points can be described in detail with a “?” Button next to the term. But the term itself should not convey conflicting ideas or invoke strong ambiguity.

I think at this point the NF should call the shot. There is more than enough community input. And melting ice isn’t likely to change without a good resolution, which I think should come from NF guidelines.

1 Like

I vote for what @Json said, we should replace "pending" by "delivered".

4 Likes

That's my impression is as well. Nano should try to lean on word choice similar to what people are used to in the real world. Sent -> Delivered -> Received is very plausible without using special terminology.
Nano is trying to become the digital currency of the real world - no need to chime with the terminology other cryptocurrencies use.

3 Likes

I like this the best. No matter what’s used people will be confused on why a transaction is not automatically received, so I think using something that logically explains the process will result in fewer questions.

Delivered accurately describes that it has left the sender and is in the receivers possession they just haven’t completed receiving it. Like the delivery truck leaving a package on your doorstep. The sender can’t recall it and take it back at this point but the receiver hasn’t picked it up and done the “work” to move it inside :grinning:

3 Likes

Postal delivery analogies work great to explain how computer networks operate, which is also true for how Nano operates if you don't focus on the inner workings that deal with cryptography.

1 Like

I think this is the best option as well. Most of the other suggestions that I've seen simply don't make sense.

3 Likes

Love the forum! Learning a lot!
How about replacing "pending" with "receiving"?

Sandooo, using receiving would have the same fundamental problem as using pending. It gives the notion that the transaction is still in process/transit/queue and user MUST take action for it to be approved. The term delivered would be different in that regard. Comparing to a package in transit (receiving), a "delivered" package may sit as delivered forever if the warehouse/mailbox/nano network allow it (which it does because the nano is no longer in the senders possession). It's an OK state to be in. However, to actually use the package/nano or to send it further you need to take action and sign/receive.

3 Likes

I agree with Leader.

Sent -> Delivered -> Received

1 Like

I also prefer Sent -> Delivered -> Received

But how do we make this happen? What is the next step?
I guess it's up to the wallet developers to change the terminology, but I guess they don't want to change it if other developers keeps the old terminology.

1 Like

I think the Nano Foundation should publish some sort of terminology guideline for developers, similar to their branding kit, and then inform the devs. The most important site to change right now should be Nanocrawler. A "?" icon next to the term explaining in detail what the term means is a must. Then other wallets. What's great about Natrium UX is that it completely removes this step and makes sure that "delivered" transactions are processed behind the scene as soon as users login.

3 Likes

This seems to me to be the best way to move forward. UI/UX is an incredibly nuanced thing to get right and is often entirely contextual to specific services. I appreciate the desire to receive top-down clarification and guidance on this from the NF. Still, it is difficult to provide comprehensive guidance that works well for all the different services in the ecosystem.

We have discussed this internally at length, and plan on presenting our thoughts in a more structured post shortly. Our feelings on this include an expectation of developing services to find the right fit for their users. Such as Natrium removing pending from accounts and only showing users their pocketed funds.

6 Likes

You are right for wallets. But given that Nanocrawler is the official explorer and is the main source of confusion for newcomers, I’m sure Ryan will appreciate inputs from the NF. Otherwise this debate will never end and he will have no idea who to listen.

Just change it to: "New"

New (previously "pending")
Received
Sent

Also timestamp shouldn't change after "pocketing".

By far the best suggestion. Big UX improvement.