The (non-)existing problem with interactive transactions & UX - Rant

Dear all I would like to rant about the (non-)existing problem with interactive transactions.
One of the most reoccurring discussion topics on this forum is the (un)-usability of Grin and complains about bad User Experience (UX). Basically, many people in the communithy complain that Grin is too hard to use. And the source of all evil/The Problem == interactivity (the need to be online to do transactions)!
These discussions mostly continue complaining about the lack of usability of Grin, state that the core developers do not care about UX etc. etc.

So here is my problem with these discussions. I hardly ever encountered problems with making interactive transactions myself, and I often feel that the arguments given about UX are not founded in whether those transactions are interactive or not.

Therefore, I want to ask everyone here who is unsatisfied with the UX of Grin to help identify what the root cause is of this unhappiness. Please try to answer the question below privately or publicly, and please be honest with yourself.

  1. Why do I perceive/experience the UX of Grin as bad?
    a - I tried so many transactions to a friends wallet and they always fail, because they are offline. → Interactivity sucks!
    b - I tried to send or withdraw from and exchange and it failed, or there are to few exchanges that support Grin!
    c - I expected the price for Grin to be higher than it is, even though I knew the supply of Grin would outpace the demand in the first few year. It must be that evil interactivity that is to blame for the low price of Grin.
    d – Another reasons, please share that reason with us.

I think most of us would have answered ( b ) or ( c ) here, meaning the root cause of the unhappiness is having few exchange support Grin properly for now or having had too high expectations for the price of Grin.

Does this mean there is no real problem with interactive transfers? Well, no, the interactivity makes it for now impossible to do cold storage for Grin and there are other limitations. But I do not think these limitations are what most people would mention when they complain about bade UX for Grin or complain about the need for non-interactive transactions.

What I hope to achieve with this rant is that we as community try to separate the perception and emotion of ‘the (non-)existing problem’ of interactive transactions’ with what factually might be the root cause of the unhappiness and perceived bade UX. Because honestly, I think Grin has come a long way from a few years back. UX is great, especially with Grin++ which is as intuitive as it can get.
Sure, it would be nice to have more exchanges and mining pools support Grin’s interactive transactions, but hell we could even pay them to develop open-source template solutions which might be a more effective solution than trying to force non-interactive transactions in the Grin ecosystem before we have a good solution.

Feel free to disagree or counter rant :wink:. By all means this does not mean we shoulld stop exploring possible solutions for non-interactive transactions or 2-step transactions, but we should do so for the right reasons.

4 Likes

I generally agree, interactive txs are not a big issue in most cases, but I see two cases where interactive transactions cannot be used in a secure way (both previously discussed in the forum), which means that they cannot be used at all under some circumstances:

  1. Checkout for ecommerce. These systems need to automatically provide an invoice to the customer. Grin can create invoices, but they need to be signed with a hot key, which means an online shop would be required to keep its hot wallet online, which is not secure.

  2. Donations. This is a similar case, but the sender would initiate the transaction. In order to automatically countersign an incoming transaction, the receiver, again, needs to keep its hot wallet online.

These are not UX issues, but things that can only be solved at protocol level as far as I can tell.

1 Like

b - I tried to send or withdraw from and exchange and it failed, or there are to few exchanges that support Grin!

So far Grin bad in b and Grin bad for payment/store. Thats all for now. Bad in b forgiveable. Bad for payment/store? Still No usecase. Still need demand for being a money.

This is something I think we can tackle on the short term using community projects. E.g. a web-plugin @markhollis is already working a bit on a PHP library for Grin.

1 Like

Firewalls, intranets, and port forwarding made direct connections a pain. Slatepacks help a lot.

2 Likes