You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #2208 we added a simple tab-separated export for the index to allow tracking regressions on inscription numbering and validate consensus across indexers for inscription numbers.
An even more important aspect of consensus is tracking ownership of inscriptions. By adding the satpoint (and optionally the address) the the export format from #2208 we have an easy way to compare across ord revisions and across indexers (gord, hiro, etc.)
Concrete proposal is to add two columns to the existing format $NUMBER\t$INSCRIPTIONID and make it $NUMBER\t$INSCRIPTIONID\t$SATPOINT\t$ADDRESS with the last column optional. Here is a few sample entries:
This would be an intermediate step on the way to full index export in #2258 (although I would probably suggest to keep a consensus-focused export format like the one proposed here stable).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In #2208 we added a simple tab-separated export for the index to allow tracking regressions on inscription numbering and validate consensus across indexers for inscription numbers.
An even more important aspect of consensus is tracking ownership of inscriptions. By adding the satpoint (and optionally the address) the the export format from #2208 we have an easy way to compare across ord revisions and across indexers (gord, hiro, etc.)
Concrete proposal is to add two columns to the existing format
$NUMBER\t$INSCRIPTIONID
and make it$NUMBER\t$INSCRIPTIONID\t$SATPOINT\t$ADDRESS
with the last column optional. Here is a few sample entries:This would be an intermediate step on the way to full index export in #2258 (although I would probably suggest to keep a consensus-focused export format like the one proposed here stable).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: