Stephen 🐈 🇨🇦 on Nostr: npub1rzxxd…n3yy3 Sorry, website went down for ~30 minutes as my power went out, UPS ...
npub1rzxxdd5ak04fnd6639hlgwmleu7tn5xyacq9qxku29m7k0amn6hqdn3yy3 (npub1rzx…3yy3) Sorry, website went down for ~30 minutes as my power went out, UPS died, and I had to switch things over to running on a generator
The discussions thing I haven't nailed down but I think a Matrix channel (or space) would probably be a good idea.
Right now the protocol specs are very loosey-goosey. I'm not afraid to create backwards-incompatible changes, because there are only a handful of transceivers out in the wild so making everyone update isn't too much of a hassle. I want the first iteration of the protocol to be as perfect as possible. As more transceivers are sent out and the protocol matures, I'm going to lock it down and from then on, only backwards compatible changes will be allowed.
I'm open to adding additional whiskers to the protocol as needed, but I'm also fairly critical that the new whiskers must be useful. I'm doing what I can to prevent the protocol from bloating too much.
The discussions thing I haven't nailed down but I think a Matrix channel (or space) would probably be a good idea.
Right now the protocol specs are very loosey-goosey. I'm not afraid to create backwards-incompatible changes, because there are only a handful of transceivers out in the wild so making everyone update isn't too much of a hassle. I want the first iteration of the protocol to be as perfect as possible. As more transceivers are sent out and the protocol matures, I'm going to lock it down and from then on, only backwards compatible changes will be allowed.
I'm open to adding additional whiskers to the protocol as needed, but I'm also fairly critical that the new whiskers must be useful. I'm doing what I can to prevent the protocol from bloating too much.