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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
getBlocks from parity give additional field author which is equal miner field, what's the point of having it, maybe it's redundant it should be removed?
I understand sealFields is a new propose from parity (ethereum/EIPs#95).
But what about difference between receiptRoot and receiptsRoot? Is there any way to make the same naming to avoid confusion and breaking external scripts?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Miner field's name is specific to PoW, since we are supporting other consensus mechanism we've decided to include more generic name author also (similar thing with nonce and sealFields). So miner is most probably left for backward compatibility.
getBlocks from parity give additional field author which is equal miner field, what's the point of having it, maybe it's redundant it should be removed?
here is an example from Parity v1.3.1
also if you compare output from geth vs parity from getBlock, you'll notice few differences:
(or view here http://pastebin.com/Zad3na9k)
I understand sealFields is a new propose from parity (ethereum/EIPs#95).
But what about difference between receiptRoot and receiptsRoot? Is there any way to make the same naming to avoid confusion and breaking external scripts?
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: