Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar fiatjaf

There are some "DVM" use cases that make sense, but framing it as this super generic tool that encompasses all "machine" use cases is absurd and counterproductive. Also trying to have a single spec for everything hurts all the use cases at the same time. The specs aren't even machine-readable (unless you're paying Sam Altman to read them for you).

If someone wanted to write a "DVM" that did one thing that person should have done that one thing, not called it a DVM, and we could have created a standard for it if it was useful, or not, maybe that machine job was a proprietary spec that didn't need standardization, maybe it would fit in some other NIP and enhance it, each case is different.

Avatar
Derek Ross 8mo ago

i agree that one spec is too minimal. this is exactly why the spec is being split into several i thought?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.