Add sequence number

[raphjaph]

Adds an unstable sequence number to make some logic cleaner

• maybe remove sequence number from front-end

[elocremarc]

I think that people don't want to add a sequence number below a certain activation number to keep the original numbers prominent socially. What if we didn't show the sequence number below a threshold and instead just showed that if you run the API? We would still index both but we would only show inscription number for earlier inscriptions.

%% if self.inscription_number >= 50,000,000 {
<dt>sequence number</dt>
  <dd>{{ self.sequence_number }}</dd>
  }

[elocremarc]

Another idea maybe we think of this like an engineering tolerance.

%% if self.inscription_number >= 50,000,000 {
<dt>sequence number</dt>
  <dd>+ {{ self.sequence_number - self.inscription_number }}</dd>
  }
  elseif self.inscription_number < 50,000,000 &&  self.inscription_number > 0{
  <dt>sequence offset</dt>
  <dd>+ {{ self.sequence_number - self.inscription_number }}</dd>
  }
  elseif self.inscription_number < 0{ 
    <dt>sequence number</dt>
  <dd>+ {{ self.sequence_number }}</dd>
  }
  

[casey]

We specifically want to display sequence numbers so that people understand exactly how inscription numbers would change if they were made unstable. Right now people are pretty much in the dark.

[elocremarc]

The sentiment I found on all the twitter spaces is people don't want to change the prior inscription numbers at all behind a certain activation number. Their view is the trust in the entire protocol will be broken if we decide to change these numbers and make them unstable and we changed to a sequence number.

I think the solution that a lot of people are in agreement with on both sides is @huuep comment:
#2458 (reply in thread)
He proposes that we immutably store the prior inscription numbers using an inscription. Then at a certain inscription number activation we will then move forward with immutable sequence numbers.

I tend to agree with you. However I want to make sure the other voices are heard here.

[raphjaph]

yeah gonna remove it from the front-end

[casey]

LGTM except for comments

[BitTogether]

Please add this, we need to have one numbering system that includes both sets of ordinals without the positive negative gimmick thing.