I agree, I drafted NIP 32 as a response to 56 which I thought was too narrow. But backward compatibility being what it is, 56 is never going away. Which is ok, I've learned since then that use-case specific nips are normally better than highly generic ones. NIP 32 has good use cases, but more protocol-specific interoperable features deserve first-class support.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hah I didn't realize you wrote NIP-32, nor that NIP-32 is newer than NIP-56... how are numbers even assigned? lol

They're squatted in PRs by NIP authors because fiatjaf has an arbitrary limit of 100 😂