# Transaction Round Naming Challenge

**URL:** <https://forum.grin.mw/t/transaction-round-naming-challenge/7886>\
**Category:** Development and Technical Discussion\
**Created:** [October 10, 2020, 2:08pm UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/transaction-round-naming-challenge/7886 "2020-10-10T14:08:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 52

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![antioch](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/forum.grin.mw/antioch/32/45_2.png) [@antioch](https://forum.grin.mw/u/antioch)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 10:27pm UTC](https://forum.grin.mw/t/transaction-round-naming-challenge/7886/52 "2020-12-22T22:27:10Z")

</div>

I wonder how far we can push this?  
The difference in the two flows is simply _who_ initiates and what direction funds flow. And I suspect these become even more similar once payjoin is considered.

Once a partial slate is created then it simply becomes a matter of both parties signing in the correct order.

Does the wallet (and user) even need to care about naming of these three steps?  
Is this potentially just -

```auto
* send (0/2)
* sign (1/2)
* sign (2/2)

```

```auto
* invoice (0/2)
* sign (1/2)
* sign (2/2)

```

I’m just thinking about how bitcoin multisig is implemented in electrum etc.  
You have an unsigned tx (0/2), then partially signed (1/2), then fully signed (2/2) and it can be broadcast (in the case of 2-of-3 multisig for example).

Our wallet knows what state the tx slate is in and knows what needs to be performed (2nd signing step etc.) Maybe these don’t even need names? And the wallet command(s) are more generic?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.grin.mw/t/transaction-round-naming-challenge/7886)._