Label "0 STX" genesis block transaction

[markmhendrickson]

As initially discussed on #377, all addresses with Stacks 1.0 activity appear to have received a "0 STX" transaction upon transition to Stacks 2.0.

E.g. https://explorer.stacks.co/txid/0x2f079994c9bd92b2272258b9de73e278824d76efe1b5a83a3b00941f9559de8a?utm_source=stacks-wallet&chain=mainnet

It may be confusing to users to see this transaction and suggest to them that something is broken or "off". We could resolve this perceptual issue by labeling this transaction specially as "Stacks 2.0 Genesis Block" and providing an explanation or something.

We may also want to tackle this separately in the wallets. But it seems prudent to resolve it on the explorer first since that's where we provide the most detail generally.

[aulneau]

I think a short term fix could be to change that specific transaction to Stacks 2.0 Genesis Block or something like that. However, the larger issue at play here is that there is information contained within that transaction that is meaningful to the address it's displayed on, but it's hard to display. There is an event that has an associated balance that should be reflected in place of where this "0 STX" transfer is being displayed.

In an ideal world when we're querying data for a given address, in this kind of instance we'd get back the information that is most relevant to the address we're looking at. Meaning that the event which contains the stx for the address would appear, and maybe it's that we'd display the "root" transaction as a caption, or tag or something else, but there is a shift away from the transaction that holds all the events as the primary item, to the event specific to address as the primary item.

I have kind of been viewing this transaction, and any contract call that has token-transfers associated with it as having "side effects". Currently we don't have a great way to query/display the side effect data in place of the root transaction.

See these other issues: #373 #365 #364

[andresgalante]

Can we just hardcode this tx as "Stacks 2.0 Genesis Block"?

[andresgalante]

Hi @markmhendrickson, we are cleaning the backlog.

Why would labeling the tx as "Stacks 2.0 Genesis Block" be important instead the blocks page for block #1?

[markmhendrickson]

This was a proposed UX fix for the address and transaction pages specifically (to avoid confusion due to seeing simply "0 STX" there), whereas the block page is a separate view.