Non-interactive txs and usability

That only gets you up to 1 grin. So then is the explorer expected to subtract 1 Grin *H for up to 10k+ times per output and check the index? This doesn’t sound very practical, and shouldn’t be considered to be on the same page as Zcash.

Of course not. You’d mostly have milligrin multiples. I bet that covers well over 90% if not 99% of current output values.

Probably of current output values, but once we have dynamic fees and wallets start calculating using base fees that adjust relative to the size & average fee of mempool txs, then I doubt that would be the case. Either way, the idea that non-interactive txs would be used in this way to support transparent outputs seems like a real stretch.

We are getting close to the last hard fork and I’m for to add a last hardfork and let 6-8 months to let the developpers implement non-interactive transaction (NITX).

We must adopt NITX method, primarily for the usability that allow no-brainer to transact easily as in almost all others cryptocurrency as far i know.

To answer to @tromp, we can keep this propriety for those who want to be sure to don’t burn their GRIN as bitcoin did early.

I don’t think slatepack or tor will help the adoption of the user in the near future, exchange will continue to struggle to accept GRIN, espicially for those where TOR is prohibited. Slatepack are still a pain when it’s for large transactions flow.

Think of those who are still not in crypto and the learning curve they need to achieve to first understand Bitcoin and after understand GRIN.

As wrote on the website “Grin wants to be usable by everyone — regardless of borders, culture, skills or access”, currently it’s only usable by nerds, and will still until we don’t adopt the usual manner to transact in crypto, which is send&receive to an address in one shot, and not a contrario in GRIN to have several steps to see our transactions fluff to others nodes.

We want to reach global adoption for GRIN, and we are in the opposite direction currently by wanting to keep this minimalism. I think you could ask to any newcomer in GRIN community what they prefer between GRIN transaction (tor or slatepack) and bitcoin transaction flow. I’m sure the answer would be the Bitcoin one at 99%.

Adopting NITX will attract more peoples, and so more contributors, It’s win-win!

Moreover, AFAIK GRIN didn’t adopted NITX early because there was no way to do it at the time until few proposals come up. Today, we have several way to do it while respecting the scalability, privacy and so usability…


I agree! NITX is btw a nice term and feels intuitive to use in this context. If Grin is meant to replace Bitcoin it must be better in every way. It is already in Scalability and Privacy, now it should tackle the usability. When Bitcoin and Grin were cars the current situation is like: Our beloved Grin-Car is faster, can transport more passengers and still consumes less fuel than Bitcoin-Car…however we left the seats out to keep the car minimalistic. No one will want to get into such a vehicle except some rare people who don’t mind the uncomfortable seating because they value the existing positive attributes that much.


I would say that the car has seats, but the key needs to be turned multiple times by driver and passenger before it moves.

Like an interlock ignition… Grin has a history of DUIs

NITX This Is the Way

Grundkurs makes a good argument. If you want more people to use grin, then you need to make it as simple as possible to use it.

Right now, it is very confusing to use grin. If grin is your first crypto, that is already a big hurdle. If you have used bitcoin or monero before, using grin is still confusing because it is unlike any other cryptocurrency. Nobody outside of the grin community knows what a slatepack is or what an interactive transaction is. There is a lot to familiarize yourself before grin is usable. And once you figure it out, it is so many extra steps just to make a simple transaction.

I hope you all will put as much thinking into this as possible because it will make or break the coin. And right now it is breaking grin.


i think that the real problem is that the exchanges from where users are getting their coins are not collaborating and implementing the last improvements. it’s not that difficult for a user to know that his wallet needs to be online or that he can get and copy past a simple slatepack to his wallet ( especially if we will get ride of the finalize step).

before deciding if we should make it one sided transaction, exchanges need to implement it right and then we will know if people hates grin because it’s interactive OR because exchanges are making it hard to use.


The poor support by exchanges already indicates that the grin is so hard to use and the exchanges lack the motivation to implement. I totally agree with @cdd that Grin should at least be as simple as Bitcoin in transaction.

1 Like

it’s not because there is a poor support from exchanges that we must change how grin work just to fit in their model. and there is also no guarantee that they will improve anything after that. grin is simple to use but exchanges make it hard. they are not taking into consideration that each project is different and that they must commit to each project.
we are not seeking new listing or promotion or whatever, just implement slatepack and support coins that already listed by keeping everything updated. for now, it feels like exchanges that already listing grin are more harmful to the project than anything else because nothing is working properly on their side.


If you expect someone doing something for free, then first you should make sure they can somehow be benefited from what they have contributed.

Other coins are all easy to support. Why Grin is so special? What will make exchanges be willing to put more efforts to implement Grin if it is not profitable?

Admitted it or not, if Grin cannot be accepted by majority exchanges, Grin is doomed. No one in Grin community has the energy to change the exchange system. Instead, it should be much easier to improve Grin itself.

Because it’s not a copy-pasta coin and is doing something different/new

1 Like

Don’t expect any answer here. No matter how good Grin you think it is, to the exchanges it is nothing at present. If it is indeed so suprior, why the adoption is so low? Looking at its price, it is now historically low. Grin is really in a big trouble. You don’t compare Grin with those copy-pasta coins but Bitcoin and ETH.

My question is: are we not online all the time currently? I think we are and we will be more connected in the future; from that perspective we should simplify Grin as much as possible to have more and more implementations.

I like those examples because we can solve these cases in many different ways.

Right now, I’m not buying the idea of “Grin must do X or Y because Exchanges” anymore. Exchanges are not our friends, they don’t care if Grin succeed, and they don’t have to care… if they just care about profit then, why should Grin be adapted to them? I think we should make things easier for users by providing Exchanges with tools, we should write a kind of “plug & play” plugin for anyone who wants to integrate Grin, we should have better documentation, we should put more effort on reducing Grin TXs to just 2 steps, and so forth… but we should never bend the knee to Exchanges.


That’s not true. Bittrex and cardano are working to fix their issues for quite some time. What we lack is instructions for exchanges imo. It’s also pointless to create them if we still intend to make changes which break this. The coin needs to differentiate from the others and having scaling and some anonimity is not enough imo. To me it looks like interactive coins are more suited for buy/sell stuff and i view them as being safer

1 Like