Home view: don't consider "securing" vaults in the total balance

[darosior]

If the rationale is that we count in the total what we consider "vaults", we only consider a new deposit a vault if we had all the revocation signatures for it.

[danielabrozzoni]

IMHO we should ditch the total balance altogether, and just have the secured and delegated balances

[danielabrozzoni]

(From a discussion with @JSwambo)

Having the following balances:

• total in custody for EVERYTHING (including only the non-secured deposits),
• When funds are pending to be secured, you see them appear as "+ x BTC, 1 vault(s)"
• Secured,
• When funds are pending to be delegated, you see them as "+ y BTC, 1 vault(s)" and this amount is removed from Secured
• Delegated

Regarding the UI:

I'm imagining "total in custody" on the top, Then 3 boxes for Deposited, Secured, Delegated (all same style) but stacked vertically. Then it may be clear how funds progress from one category to the next

If we go this way, I think we should remove this box, as it would be useless:

What do you think?

[JSwambo]

If we go this way, I think we should remove this box, as it would be useless:

yeah, or rather make the box match the others.

From the user perspective, funds would be "in custody" from the moment they are deposited, until the moment a spend (or emergency) is confirmed. Also from user perspective, the funds in custody can be "Deposited", "Secured", "Delegated".

It'd be nice to have buttons that make sense for the transitions, e.g. For Secured -> Delegated a "Delegate" button is sensible. However, right now from deposited -> secured the button says "create vault", which isn't clear. So either change it to "Secure Deposit" (with secure being a verb... could be ambiguous), or change the "Secured" naming to "Vault" and keep "create vault".

There should ofc be consistency tho

[darosior]

deposited / acknowledged / active is what we previously had. Cross-linking https://github.com/revault/revault-gui/issues/88 which is the only reference i could find to the decision of moving to not mention deposited coins.

IIRC the rationale was:

• Use no Bitcoin lingo, come up with a "vault" vocabulary
• Define a vault. What is it? We used the definition of "a coin with the revocation txs pre-signed"
• Make deposits second-class citizens since they are'nt vaults

[danielabrozzoni]

Sorry, misclick!

[darosior]

We still account for the 'securing' funds in the total balance.