Great post, Guilherme. Thanks for sharing. I have a few questions to you related to that.
You mentioned "MerkleRoot" and why is not called "hash". Do you think that using "hash" is wrong and can be considered an anti-pattern?
You added the "creationTimestamp" as a required field to the block header (actually you didn't directly, but it seems to be in your description). This field seems to be more an optional data field, instead of a requirement to the block header. What your thoughts about this?
Technology enthusiast, quality code maker and a problem solver. I believe that beautiful, creative and well written applications can change positively the people’s life.
Hey Gabriel ! Good questions, I think i can answer them:
I don't think this is considered a anti-pattern at all, since I am based in the Bitcoin in this post the naming was a definition that Satoshi made, probably to let clear that the value is being generated with Merkle tree. With that said this is basically a decision that is made by the developer so if you plan to develop a fork from Bitcoin (github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin) to create your own coin you can go a ahead and change it. :)
Yes Gabriel like the first answer the block is planned by the developer and they can decide if its important or not to have this field. Personally i think it is a important field to have more transparency of information in the blocks explorer around there. Checkout blockexplorer.com/ and try to find some blocks there and play around it :) (Btw those are real blocks !)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Great post, Guilherme. Thanks for sharing. I have a few questions to you related to that.
You mentioned "MerkleRoot" and why is not called "hash". Do you think that using "hash" is wrong and can be considered an anti-pattern?
You added the "creationTimestamp" as a required field to the block header (actually you didn't directly, but it seems to be in your description). This field seems to be more an optional data field, instead of a requirement to the block header. What your thoughts about this?
Thanks again, man! :)
Hey Gabriel ! Good questions, I think i can answer them:
I don't think this is considered a anti-pattern at all, since I am based in the Bitcoin in this post the naming was a definition that Satoshi made, probably to let clear that the value is being generated with Merkle tree. With that said this is basically a decision that is made by the developer so if you plan to develop a fork from Bitcoin (github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin) to create your own coin you can go a ahead and change it. :)
Yes Gabriel like the first answer the block is planned by the developer and they can decide if its important or not to have this field. Personally i think it is a important field to have more transparency of information in the blocks explorer around there. Checkout blockexplorer.com/ and try to find some blocks there and play around it :) (Btw those are real blocks !)