---
# System prepended metadata

title: Transaction Detail

---

# Transaction Detail

###### kor
Hello! I've been lurking around for a while. Hopefully this is the correct channel.

A quick question: are there any thoughts, notes or consensus on displaying multiple inputs (UTXO addresses) and outputs in "transaction details" like pages for wallet UX/UI? Or is it entirely dependant on target audience (optional)?

Interestingly Ledger does not show additional outputs on a batch transaction for example.

| Column 2 | Column 3 |
| -------- | -------- |
|![](https://i.imgur.com/YgkwsBf.png)|![](https://i.imgur.com/0n1OrsC.jpg)|

###### Johns Beharry
transaction detail is such a overlooked component in wallet uis so thanks for brining it up.
the consensus of the ecosystem is presented in those screenshots you’ve shown there.

i think what it would be dependent on is the direction of the transaction.
who is the one with the ownership of the new utxos.

if the wallet owner is receiving a transaction, and it happens to be a batched one perhaps from an exchange — its possible to identify which addresses are in control of wallet, so we can highlight them at the least. (edited) 

How would you approach it?

###### kor
Thanks, I appreciate your reply.

> i think what it would be dependent on is the direction of the transaction.
>
> who is the one with the ownership of the new utxos.

Is an interesting point.

I was leaning toward simplicity (hiding the info) like the Ledger (left) screenshot as our wallet has a more mainstream target user. At least we can start there, and add more details if there is demand. Those additional details can be accessed via "view on explorer" button. A slight step forward could be a note "View all inputs (2)" which could also just link to the explorer browser.

I was kind of surprised that Ledger didn't show those other outputs tbh. They do as you suggest, but also don't show any of the other outputs/receiving addresses. The two screenshots above are for the same transaction.

My main concern was that I was missing something important, specifically in regard inputs - a user needing be able to see their internal addresses sources for their UTXOs(?). Personally I have never needed to see that info.

![](https://i.imgur.com/7wzk6LN.png)

###### Christoph Ono
Here’s a visual exploration I did a while back, trying to find a simple way to communicate what is happening. In this visual system, transactions are always blue and addresses purple.

![](https://i.imgur.com/FC7VED9.png)

I always thought the way explorers show this info is overly cryptic.

I don’t think wallets necessarily need to show this level of detail. But for transparency, it’s helpful if there is a link to an explorer that makes it easy to verify.

> My main concern was that I was missing something important, specifically in regard inputs - a user needing be able to see their internal addresses sources for their UTXOs(?). Personally I have never needed to see that info.

Without labels it makes it difficult to differentiate the inputs for sure. If they had labels then you can then understand how in that transaction you revealed other UTXOs to people/entities who previously did not know about them. (edited) 

###### Johns Beharry
> In this visual system, transactions are always blue and addresses purple.

@Christoph Ono is amount sent in the blue component the inputs you own or the total of the transaction?

###### Christoph Ono
Total (numbers are wrong) as this was meant for an explorer that doesn’t know your addresses.

###### Johns Beharry
@kor any further thoughts on this?
i was also wondering if the change output should be shown also on this screen for outgoing transactions, so then the user knows that the new utxo they created is in their wallet but also now visible to the recipient of the other utxo (the payment/s).

###### kor
Thanks for following up @Johns Beharry.

Thanks for the design ref @Christoph Ono. I wonder if it could be simplified (curious not actually sure). Does a transaction ever have more than one sender? I'm not clear on multi-sig.

For our wallet we have just gone with "view all outputs (2)" link to explorer for now, as it's not the highest priority.

I was dreaming that it would be cool if you did label every/most transaction(s)... and label every/most recipient/receiver address... you could have a screen with a list of all of your internal addresses which could each display what users (recipient/receiver addresses) have knowledge of.

Like it could automatically show you that since you received from an exchange to address a, and made a transaction with change to b, the exchange knows you probably own internal address b and will know the address/transaction.

Maybe this would need a "certainty percentage" value next to the user (recipient/receiver addresses) "aware" of your address, as the certainty would go down as transactions continue (maybe unclear which is change addy).

This could lead to spending options where you could optionally manually pick UTXOs/addresses to spend from based on who knows you own the addresses.

Maybe this is not understandable rambling, or entirely impractical. I'd like to play around with a design, just busy lately.

###### Johns Beharry
Even cooler if the ui let you add new internal addresses for the TX and drag around which UTXOs go where, to really obfuscate what is what.

hey @kor what you describe there has a lot of benefits for users privacy. ive been looking into the problem of automatic coin selecting and trying to solve through a contacts abstraction check  out this demo would love to know what you think — https://bitcoin-contacts.netlify.app/
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8a8wnafvagsupaj/payment-abstractions-demo.mov?dl=0

###### Christoph Ono
Totally get it and as Johns said we’ve discussed similar things. Ideally, the application can also use this info itself and guide the user towards protecting their privacy by auto-selecting coins to protect privacy, recommending mixing when appropriate (and being able to do what with 1 click), etc. It’s a good step forward for the user to be able to easily understand this, but even better if the wallet just automatically uses the info in the best way.

###### Johns Beharry
> Does a transaction ever have more than one sender? I’m not clear on multi-sig.

A coinjoin transaction has more than one sender and lots more outputs.
- wallet can identify your inputs and outputs.

A batched transaction coming out of an exchange or hosted wallet.
- the receiver only cares to see which output is theirs.
- the sender probably doesn’t get a view of inputs.

Also a Payjoin transaction done with a merchant.
- the merchant sends bitcoin to you you send bitcoin to the merchant, it looks confusing on-chain but ultimately the merchant receives a larger amount and chain analysis is hella confused about which direction the payment is going.

Multisig spending
- When spending from a multisig, there could be a single input, but multiple signers that unlock it.

A batched transaction on your own
- you may have different devices or wallets that add inputs and outputs to the transaction