Avatar
Big Barry Bitcoin 2y ago

Just a thought... We should stop drawing transactions as interconnected lines. There should be a break.

Transaction inputs are collected, counted and "destroyed" aka spent.

Transaction outputs are new coins that must, along with fees, amount to the same as the inputs.

I propose we start drawing them like this with a break in the middle:

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=625x260&blurhash=ZMQ0UNt6xGbD%25ZRkX3xat3%7EnWEtPWDRpoJoNaxah_1M%7C4pxtjZtPt5R*RkE3t5%3FZRlR*WFRlocxt&x=b09eedf9555fd3c51bf54185cb286fc410378ebc3cf3995e52991cb60efe95c3

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Big Barry Bitcoin 2y ago

I honestly think this is the missing visual indicator that makes the idea of tracing coins and implying things like ordinals look unintuitive.

When you look at the above and think ordinals, it becomes clear what ordinals are doing: they are drawing lines where they were none to begin with.

Avatar
₿² 2y ago

Maybe everything doesn't need to be represented exactly how it actually happens.

Avatar
OT 2y ago

Most are still obviously linked

Avatar
Nice and Kind Vic 2y ago

incorrect. outputs and fees cannot exceed inputs. they dont need to be the same. fees are suggested by the tx maker, but its up to the block producer to accept all available fees offered or burn some.

Avatar
Big Barry Bitcoin 2y ago

Your statement does not invalidate mine. The fee of a transaction is always the remainder of all inputs - all outputs. Therefore the sum of all outputs and the fee is always equal to the sum of the inputs.

A miner choosing to claim less reward than permitted when they mine a block is irrelevant to the point I'm making here.

It's a nice fun factoid, but doesn't make my statement incorrect.