Rename Transactions back to Operations

[decanus]

A few of us implementers have been talking about the naming of Transactions and believe it is best renamed back to Operations to lower confusion and potentially mistaking Transactions with transactions in the classical sense. The only thing that should be known as a Transaction is a Transfer.

If not, it would be great to know what the reason behind the rename was.

[GregTheGreek]

+1

[djrtwo]

I'm pro :)
Spent a long time coming up with the name Operations and was sad to see it go

[JustinDrake]

it would be great to know what the reason behind the rename was

Abstractly, a "blockchain" is a chain of "blocks" that advance "state", where the blocks contain signed messages called "transactions". The beacon chain is a "system blockchain" which has "system blocks", "system state" and... "system transactions".

In summary, the word "transaction" was picked to fit the block/state/transaction framework. While I think the nomenclature is natural I can see how it can be confusing. Looks like people are in favour of renaming back to "operation" :)

[decanus]

@JustinDrake thanks for the full clarification. As we have user transactions on the beaconchain now I’d definitely support going back to operations.

[JustinDrake]

As we have user transactions on the beaconchain now I’d definitely support going back to operations.

Sure. (As a side note, transfers are a temporary thing to be removed in phase 2.)