search

UCRegistry / chain-registry

Standardized registry for multi-interface blockchains
MIT License
37 stars 13 forks source link

Naming: "network ID" vs. "chain ID" #12

Closed webmaster128 closed 5 years ago

webmaster128 commented 5 years ago

For consistent documentation, we should have a consistent name for the network field. The two obvious candidates are "network ID" and "chain ID".

We use chain ID at IOV which comes from the name of the field in Tendermint genesis file. But I have no strong opinion here. It should just be consistent.

pedrouid commented 5 years ago

Depends what we prioritize, for example EVM uses chainId but most blockchains like Cosmos and Bitcoin use just network.

So I basically just prioritized the majority by converting EVM chainId's into a network string (chainId 1 === network eip155-1)

I would signal to keep this field as is

webmaster128 commented 5 years ago

"network" is fine for me.

But can we go with "network ID" instead of just "network"? The idea behind this is that the network ID uniquely identifies the network. The network ID is a string whereas the network is a vague, hard to specify idea of what a network is.

pedrouid commented 5 years ago

Alright, that makes sense

RiccardoM commented 5 years ago

I'm in favor of adding the id suffix as well. It makes it more clear on what the field itself represents.