I think the concept of "layers" has been beaten to death and stretched way too thin, to the point of meaningless.
With that out of the way, random thought:
Most NIPs are not nostr but protocols on top of it (nostr = NIP-01)
NIP-04 (DM/encryption scheme), NIP-44 (DM/encryption scheme, NIP-46 (remote signing), NIP-47 (wallet protocol), NIP-90 (data vending machines), etc. All different protocols built on top of Nostr.
That's why we can end up with competing NIPs implementing the same functionality, and why worse NIPs with more network effects can prevail.
E.g. Should a new client that wants to implement DMs go with NIP-04 or NIP-44?
I agree with Mike Dilger (npub1acg…p35c) that rewriting NIP-46 in a completely incompatible way was the wrong approach and it would have been better as an independent NIP that should have battled it out against NIP-46 in the market, just like NIP-44 is challenging NIP-04.
Seeing (some) NIPs as protocols, and not simply functionalities might be a good heuristic:
NIP-46 is not just "remote signing" it's "remote signing with this particular protocol", if we want to change the approach it makes sense to do it via a different NIP that needs to earn it's own and dethrone the competing protocol that provides the same functionality.
PABLOF7z
npub1l2…tajft
2024-02-15 11:34:00
Author Public Key
npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajftPublished at
2024-02-15 11:34:00Event JSON
{
"id": "62989116764570cd11a15188c12ee0553fb7f2e217855a1f51e5ebf0158046b6",
"pubkey": "fa984bd7dbb282f07e16e7ae87b26a2a7b9b90b7246a44771f0cf5ae58018f52",
"created_at": 1707996840,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"ee11a5dff40c19a555f41fe42b48f00e618c91225622ae37b6c2bb67b76c4e49"
]
],
"content": "I think the concept of \"layers\" has been beaten to death and stretched way too thin, to the point of meaningless.\n\nWith that out of the way, random thought:\n\nMost NIPs are not nostr but protocols on top of it (nostr = NIP-01)\n\nNIP-04 (DM/encryption scheme), NIP-44 (DM/encryption scheme, NIP-46 (remote signing), NIP-47 (wallet protocol), NIP-90 (data vending machines), etc. All different protocols built on top of Nostr.\n\nThat's why we can end up with competing NIPs implementing the same functionality, and why worse NIPs with more network effects can prevail.\n\nE.g. Should a new client that wants to implement DMs go with NIP-04 or NIP-44? \n\nI agree with nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c that rewriting NIP-46 in a completely incompatible way was the wrong approach and it would have been better as an independent NIP that should have battled it out against NIP-46 in the market, just like NIP-44 is challenging NIP-04.\n\nSeeing (some) NIPs as protocols, and not simply functionalities might be a good heuristic:\n\nNIP-46 is not just \"remote signing\" it's \"remote signing with this particular protocol\", if we want to change the approach it makes sense to do it via a different NIP that needs to earn it's own and dethrone the competing protocol that provides the same functionality.",
"sig": "4f8e77ce26d8d3e03e47c4ba6bc8eca1ce99784422cf44d2c8a281492875a8bf82265bc55e041c2f1ae57ce71f2c9056b0392a3bcf4868c1277c425b992c0a09"
}