DEx: move focus away from implementation details

[dexX7]

Joa Page brought up an interesting statement:

There is no need to put the transaction hash in the table. At most, a link to the transaction hash might be useful as a very, very small icon but the first column is deadicated to something which humans can’t read. When humans can’t read it, don’t display it in an interface – its unreadable.

I'm a "purist" and removing the transaction hash completely would be a deal breaker for me, but he nailed it nevertheless. There is a lot of information in the overview and the other sections that closely derives from the underlying implementation and low level details which might be more suitable to be placed somewhere else.

[genecyber]

This is commonly talked about as the way to drive mass adoption of crypto currencies. This being the abstraction of all the highly technical information away. I have witnessed a hash actually frighten a person, no lie they were confused by things crypto and it set them up to be anxious about every other bit of the bitcoin experience.  Things like circle are exciting because they are aesthetically pleasing and non technical.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, dexX7 notifications@github.com wrote:

Joa Page brought up an interesting statement:

There is no need to put the transaction hash in the table. At most, a link to the transaction hash might be useful as a very, very small icon but the first column is deadicated to something which humans can’t read. When humans can’t read it, don’t display it in an interface – its unreadable.

I'm a "purist" and removing the transaction hash would a deal breaker for me, but he nailed it nevertheless. There is a lot of information in the overview and the other sections that closely derives from the underlying implementation and technical details. I share his opinon: this is more suitable for what it actually is "a technical detail [section]".

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/omniwallet/issues/894

[ghost]

This is an interesting point, but I would be weary of being accused of 'dumbing down' the interface for users who actually want access to the technical details. That said, I think this kind of 'cruise-control' type mode should be default, with an 'advanced/expert' option to expose implementation details. We do risk scaring away technical users by abstracting away those details, in the same way we risk scaring away casual users by providing them, is my perspective.

[genecyber]

When I install many apps I'm prompted with a "Hacker or User" 

Also one thing that would be really great for an omni of the future would be a new user option, first time users have an interactive tutorial that will have then making a testnet trade sending simple sends and adding new addresses.

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Faiz Khan notifications@github.com wrote:

This is an interesting point, but I would be weary of being accused of 'dumbing down' the interface for users who actually want access to the technical details. That said, I think this kind of 'cruise-control' type mode should be default, with an 'advanced/expert' option to expose implementation details. We do risk scaring away technical users by abstracting away those details, in the same way we risk scaring away casual users by providing them, is my perspective.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/omniwallet/issues/894#issuecomment-55482639

[dexX7]

In this particular context I think there is indeed no need to show the transaction hash in the overview, but absolutely no objection to put it into the actual order details. (re: order book - not transaction explorer!)

... who actually want access to the technical details

That's true. I think it's rather the question of how it's done. The following was an eye opener for me after realizing how the brilliant mind of an engineer sometimes seem to miss the obvious - and sorry, if this it out of context, but it still serves as good example.. :)

Related to meta-DEx trading a few formats were discussed:

Trade "MSC SP3" 3 4
Trade "BTC MSC" 1 10
Trade "BTC SP3" 1 100
(traditional DEx) 1SellerAddr: Trade 1 BTC 100 MSC (offer - broadcast)
(traditional DEx) 1BuyerAddr: Trade 100 MSC 1BTC 1SellerAddr
1Guy1: Trade 5 SP3 500 SP5
1Guy2: Trade 200 SP5 2 SP3

---

My intent is probably most of the time something like:

"Buy 50 BTC @ 450.00 USD"
"Sell 10 BTC @ 1200.00 USD"

So what would be the equivalent?

"Trade 22500 USD 50 BTC"
"Trade 10 BTC 12000 USD"

1. The one sided orderbook is a low level detail, but I actually want to "buy" or "sell".
2. Most of the time I think in terms of "price", not "total amount that is the result of a 
   completely filled order at price x".
3. For trades that are constructed by providing amounts instead of price, point one 
   remains intact and I continue to think of something like:

"Buy One-Token for Another-Token"
"Sell Two-Tokens for Five-Tokens"

Or maybe even:

"Sell All-DumpCoins for As-Many-As-I-Can-Get-Of-SomeOtherTokens at Whatever-Price" :)

The later should be build by a GUI.

In general I think the closer everything looks to similar systems, e.g. bitcoin exchanges, the easier a transition into this new area will be.

Even though the following UI was old school, it was damn useful:

https://btct.co/security (also: news and ticker + chart (which was actually not the best imho) - unfortunally the order mask is no longer visible - you can accept the disclaimer - the site is closed anyway -- but it's worth to mention that the trading volume surpassed BTC/USD trading by a factor of 2x-3x at high times (!))

[achamely]

I can see the benefit of simplifying some of the more complex interactions and it probably makes sense at least in the wallet history/trade page. The only other place we display the hash is the explorer overview which i think has value being displayed

[dexX7]

Agreed. Related to the DEx: instead of transaction hash, the seller's address might be more fitting.