Update: If you like the idea support it on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/87ym3g/the_case_for_renaming_zeroconf_to_simply_verified/ And retweet on Twitter to help spread the idea!
This idea came about discussing the problem of double spending on zero-conf. As many might know there is great work going into making double spending a non-issue on Bitcoin Cash.
Credit also goes to Wecx, Coretrolls.info, John M (Beta Dollar), CryptoWyvern for ideas. However, zero-conf is much more of a problem in regards to miner attacks, and edge exploitation cases. The chances of it happening with a small ticket item from a merchant is extremely extremely low, and also not profitable for the double spender. The effort that goes into double spending for the average consumer purchase just isn't worth it. Thus, zero-conf is pretty safe for merchants. Counterfeit cash (which is essentially zero-conf unless they check every bill) or credit card fraud is also a high risk for merchants, the chances of zero-conf being a problem for a merchant is very low in comparison. As long as the item is not big ticket like a computer or car, then zero-conf is almost completely safe, and the loss would be tiny if such a attack went through. So zero-conf is one of the most awesome original features of Bitcoin, until it got removed by Bitcoin legacy. So what is the problem? Even if we fixed the non-existent double spending on zero-conf, it still looks untrustworthy to a merchant currently unless they know a lot about Bitcoin. (It's a presentation problem) This is just being in the shoes of the merchant. Zero-conf sounds like NOTHING has been verified. I know it's cheating a little bit, but I think naming 0-confirmation to simply "verified" will go a long way to changing this perception. To me as a merchant, if you say "verified" but 0/3 confirmations that's good enough for me. I get that it's not 100%, but it's good enough. When you say it's just 0/3 confirmations or zero-conf, it just says to me the transaction is not done at all.
Of course, we know 0-conf is not actually just a instant message, the transaction has been broadcasted to the network, it just needs to be confirmed and written to the blockchain which takes longer. The current user experience just does not instill confidence, it doesn't inspire trust.
So imagine if you were showing off Bitcoin Cash, and the moment you hit send, a green "verified" 0/3 confirmations showed up. I know it's stupid, but I'm pretty sure people will go "wow that's really fast and awesome" instead of "why is it taking 10 minutes?"
So the new experience would be: Unverified > Verified > Confirmed
Obviously if a merchant detects double spend, then that customer is blacklisted and you don't give him any goods or services again or stop whatever service you are providing in the unlikely case.
Exactly, how this will work I'l leave to you readers, smarter people and developers to figure out.
For example: To improve the security of it more, there can be a delay of 3 seconds, or Peter Rizun mentioned it can get down to 750ms just via optimizations. During the delay, nodes(mempool) could be queried to verify there isn't a second spend of the same outputs. Another example. Verification may only work for amounts below $1000usd. Perhaps the merchant can set the verification threshold. So whilst we are working to completely fix zero-conf 100%, we can fundamentally change the user experience to reflect what zero-conf actually is and make merchants understand this is essentially the 1st confirmation on the network. The second confirmation is when it gets written into the blockchain.
It's safe enough for most low ticket items and services, and merchants need to know that. Nothing much after the Paywall apart from thanks and some comments. Please let me know if I am wrong about anything or anything you would like to add, and I will edit this post. Thanks.
 

$6.00
70.0¢

Reviews
6 of 6 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 6 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
Comments
  earned 0.0¢
What does everybody think?
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
Why not node confirmed transactions or instant transactions?
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 20.0¢
How about "approved by 3rd party" for 0-conf vs "Confirmed"?
At the end of the day, a 0-conf TX is risky. Most merchants would want to transfer this risk to a wallet provider, a miner or some insurance company for a fee.
The merchant will receive "approved by Bitcoin.com" or "approved by Bitmain" notification and provide the customer with the service. The approval services in return charge the merchant based on the calculated risk.
20.0¢
   12mo ago
9.0¢ 10.0¢
  earned 60.0¢
@solitude for almost all the usecases where 0-conf is deployed, it's actually not risky at all for reasons that have nothing to do with the chain.
For example, buying an air ticket with 0-conf is never risky without any delay, because your name is tied to the air ticket and the ticket can be cancelled trivially next block if you double spend. Hence anything that's not anonymous doesn't really take a risk in 0-conf - compare with the fact that they also take Visa which takes 6 *weeks* to settle, that's some actual risk.
Meanwhile, if you buy coffee, chances are good that your double-spend could be detected before you get to your car, then you'll get whacked and jailed, which is not worth the coffee money. So physical transactions are also generally pretty safe for 0-conf.
If you buy hosting, cheating on your 0-conf is pointless - your hosting service will be terminated immediately next block, hence 0-conf is also safe for any service that is ongoing.
People who say "0-conf is not safe" actually refers to immediate delivery in whole, non-reversible, perfectly anonymous goods and services - which really accounts for a tiny, tiny amount of real-life commerce if you think about it. Those services don't accept 0-conf anyway, nor do people usually care that much. For the rest of us, 0-conf is good enough.

60.0¢
   12mo ago
25.0¢ 25.0¢ 10.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
@im_uname
I see what you are saying. All I am saying is, there is a risk, however tiny it is, and this risk opens up a possibility for, say Bitcoin.com, to provide a service to merchants to guarantee the inclusion of a transaction in the blockchain.
They could just charge for instance $10 for 10,000 transactions worth less than $100. The merchant will sign up in the wallet app and pay $10. After this payment transaction is confirmed, every transaction to this Bitcoin.com wallet worth < $100 will in 5-10 seconds show "Approved by Bitcoin.com" sign in addition to "Receiving" in the transaction list. Once it is confirmed, both signs will disappear and it will only say "Confirmed".
I think the market will produce this service eventually if BCH does achieve wide merchant adoption.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
> we are working to completely fix zero-conf 100%
You cannot 'completely fix' zero-conf. If you could, there would be no need to have Bitcoin in the way is is designed, it simply needs to be 'good enough'.
I disagree with the term 'verified' as to verify is " to state or confirm that it is true "which is not the case. It is anything but verified.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 10.0¢
I agree with Ben. "Verified" would be misleading. "Received" or "Payment Received" might be better at conveying the status of the transaction.
10.0¢
   12mo ago
8.7¢
  earned 0.0¢
can i deposit 10 $ here?


0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
I totally agree with the need of a better name, but disagree with the proposed. I think a better name would be "Validated" transactions
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
I think either something like this, or drastically speeding up block time needs to be in effect.
Hopefully, in the future, things like weak-blocks and other improvements will make 0-conf the default for any type of payment, no matter how large. Go peer to peer cash!
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
I heard of blinkpay or blink for short as a snazzy pr term for 0-conf. Verified is too confusing because if they do get double spent on people will never trust it again, and will begin to think confirms are stupid too.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
You are thinking about this all wrong - when it works, nobody should even have to care! We should just call transactions "transactions", regardless of how many confirmations they have. When you go to swipe your credit card, do you know how long the final bank settlement takes? Do you even care? When payments are "good enough", none of this technical mumbo-jumbo even matters to users.
Of course, engineers trying to improve the network still need to discuss these things. As long as we are in an engineering context, terms like "0-conf" are perfectly fine. The important thing is that we don't let the engineering discussions leak into the marketing or UX for ordinary users. Transactions are just "transactions" unless you are doing something weird / technical / risky.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 25.0¢
Liking the conversations (debate?) below. Looks healthy, even some parts a bit rough but still in good manners! (compared to the name-calling kind by the trolls!)
25.0¢
   12mo ago
25.0¢
  earned 25.0¢
Why not "valid"?
25.0¢
   12mo ago
25.0¢
  earned 25.0¢
Thank you very much for this. I am currently working on a merchant adoption platform and the 0-Conf name has been a marketing challenge. Other names I am considering for it are: -Broadcasted transactions -Beamed transactions -Posted transactions -Casted transactions -Aired transactions -Public transactions -Issued transactions -Open transactions
My mind changes constantly and this has been something I've been meditating on since Satoshi's Vision, but recently I've been leaning toward calling them "Issued Transactions" in my marketing documents. Still awaiting community feedback.
edit: BTW, be careful about calling things names like "Verified" when they have the ability to be rejected. Back in 2006 when i was an ebay noob, I got scammed out of a laptop because the buyer's Paypal transaction was reversed on me, even though it was Verified but not SETTLED. I think my love for Bitcoin stems from my 12 year bitterness against Paypal.
25.0¢
   12mo ago
25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
Awesome idea, we need more understandable language for new users. Easy of use is key here for bitcoin cash to grow.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
I like it! It's more accurate to what 0-confirmation means and it could make merchants feel better about using crypto.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
How about just "Payment accepted."? KISS.
0.0¢
   12mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
Thanks for all the comments, It's just a discussion article. =)
0.0¢
   12mo ago