There are numerous parties hoping and wishing that machine-to-machine becomes a use case for Lightning payments. I was one, once. Maybe it comes to be some time in the future, but that time is not now.
Build what you want, of course, but I'd argue that precious talent, time, and energy is better spent elsewhere, like assuring that the core features work, work well, and work consistently across clients.
Replies (3)
Agree. I did attempt to jump on the DVM band waggon a few times. But I found it too complex in the end. A simple machine to machine system that has nostr and lightning in the mix, I'm all for, though!
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.
This is good constructive feedback, and totally agree
