Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

proposal: use inscription_id instead of inscription_number for /num/*.png #1

Open
jokie88 opened this issue Jun 11, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@jokie88
Copy link

jokie88 commented Jun 11, 2023

Hi!

I think it may be more robust to issues to use the inscription_id instead of the inscription_number as the "key reference" for orc-721.

Reason:

  1. Inscription number could shift since it is a manually constructed ID depending on what is included/excluded from the ordinalds standard.
  2. InscriptionID will not change and is unique to each inscription

(this is for num/*.png specifically but may be a good standard to use across the project)

@geraldb
Copy link
Member

geraldb commented Jun 12, 2023

summary - let''s make it a requirement / policy to upload / commit / save the image indexed by inscribe id AND num here - i will rewrite the README shortly.

thanks for all your support - i personally prefer numbers because they are more human and easier to use and remember for humans and promote the idea of the "long count" going from 0 to infinity - and bonus - easy to sort / order by date - 0,1,2... .... i see your point about bitcoin / inscribe tx ids ... here's the promise (and suggestion) ... let's always upload both ... indexed by num & id (git itself is content-addressed storage e.g. indexed by content hash and not file name/dir hierarchy - so the image is in the blog store only once and gets referenced in the "commit tree" - that is my understanding of the git internals). note: the only oonstraint is the image size ... i run here on a (personal) free plan (with space limits)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants