← Back to team overview

mimblewimble team mailing list archive

Re: Renaming "excess value"


On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:43:21PM -0500, Ignotus Peverell wrote:
> I only gave it about 2 min of thinking so wouldn't mind renaming that either, I just thought it was reasonably accurate: a proof of the transaction validity within the chain. One caveat is that there are multiple types of proofs already: range proofs, Cuckoo Cycle proofs, etc. But properly qualified as "transaction proof", it seems clear enough.
> I'm not sure I like "kernel", it's not very descriptive and evokes other things for me (but maybe only for me). If "transaction proof" doesn't cut it either, I could suggest "abridged transaction" or "transaction summary" (which would perhaps still evoke that it takes part into a summation).

I like "summary" for having an accurate meaning but I don't like that it will always need to be qualified as "transaction summary" because the word is too common.

The word "kernel" to me emphasizes that this is the "hard core" of the transaction that can't be removed from the blockchain, and that it contains the essential information of the transaction (how it changes the UTXO set).

I don't think this word is overloaded at all in the blockchain space. It's something that will catch the reader as "hey, MimbleWimble is doing something different, it's got these kernels, what's going on there".

Andrew Poelstra
Mathematics Department, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

"A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese
 who can never find their peace,
 whether north or south or west or east"
       --Joanna Newsom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature