DASH Coin Burning is incorrectly called "collateral" in relation to GObject / Prosposals

[coolaj86]

There are several references here to "collateral" transactions, but these are NOT collateral transactions. In fact, they are coin burns.

https://github.com/dashpay/docs/blob/23.0.0/docs/core/reference/p2p-network-governance-messages.md?plain=1

You can clearly see in this testnet example that the DASH is unrecoverable burned in the OP_RETURN, not donated to the network or staked or held for conditional broadcast:

{
  "txid": "2f3dbf4094c26594c7cd4b1c3d0af3740181d7e57f9f4faf5b7edbf6eddf4954",
  "version": 3,
  "type": 0,
  "size": 201,
  "locktime": 0,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "700a4d0ea01fb02bde858497a99c5da94c79ca2886601a6c9ca22cbc89183040",
      "vout": 1,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "3045022100c12cc34ffbfd82455de58c80683575b81125b59cb543960ad36fad2252c5634402205952e4131215249fb282609f3e9543843d9dbe18660db81670603d833cb988a6[ALL|ANYONECANPAY] 03d1ec7f18856774f182888a3cadb3fb28ef76b0f7ddf2f1e472cc1123a8ebed91",
        "hex": "483045022100c12cc34ffbfd82455de58c80683575b81125b59cb543960ad36fad2252c5634402205952e4131215249fb282609f3e9543843d9dbe18660db81670603d833cb988a6812103d1ec7f18856774f182888a3cadb3fb28ef76b0f7ddf2f1e472cc1123a8ebed91"
      },
      "value": 1.00001000,
      "valueSat": 100001000,
      "address": "yjZxu7SJAwgSm1JtWybuQRYQDx34z8P2Z7",
      "sequence": 4294967295
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 1.00000000,
      "valueSat": 100000000,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_RETURN 67b8f7f7fb34e11ea95e4fd327a24cdeffa288a01503e09b71671373265825fb",
        "hex": "6a2067b8f7f7fb34e11ea95e4fd327a24cdeffa288a01503e09b71671373265825fb",
        "type": "nulldata"
      }
    }
  ],
  "hex": "030000000140301889bc2ca29c6c1a608628ca794ca95d9ca9978485de2bb01fa00e4d0a70010000006b483045022100c12cc34ffbfd82455de58c80683575b81125b59cb543960ad36fad2252c5634402205952e4131215249fb282609f3e9543843d9dbe18660db81670603d833cb988a6812103d1ec7f18856774f182888a3cadb3fb28ef76b0f7ddf2f1e472cc1123a8ebed91ffffffff0100e1f50500000000226a2067b8f7f7fb34e11ea95e4fd327a24cdeffa288a01503e09b71671373265825fb00000000",
  "blockhash": "0000008efbcbd61a47a8b4baffc2b208ccf683736b505341bc2524b2d2cebf05",
  "height": 1079141,
  "confirmations": 191,
  "time": 1723019866,
  "blocktime": 1723019866,
  "instantlock": true,
  "instantlock_internal": true,
  "chainlock": true
}

This is, of course, confusing because it leads developers to believe that the transaction should be structured in a way that leads simply to the misleading message "invalid collateral transaction" instead of accurately informing the developer that they need to burn the coin to the OP_RETURN.

[thephez]

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure why they're called "collateral". Unlike masternodes or CoinJoin where the term collateral makes sense, it's definitely a different thing with governance. I've asked some OGs to see if anyone remembers a reason for that. My only thought is that in the early days of the governance system maybe it was planned to eventually change it to be a collateral that could be returned (upon completion of the proposal task, for example).

[riongull]

Knowing the history would be interesting. More important is what we do moving forward. "Collateral" is an overloaded term in Dash, and the (at least three) usages are all handled differently, so at best that limits the usefulness of the term.