Alex
@cryptobenkei
Prove me wrong: You can't just write standards. All you've got is a shot at drafting schemas and crossing your fingers the market adopts them
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Not really. Standards are usually drafted in collaboration with their intended users and undergo revisions to accommodate for new needs. That's why standards include an RFC stage and are often revised when needs change for one reason or the other.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Alex
@cryptobenkei
I find more practical a bottom-up approach, where builders create schemas and evolve them along market adoption.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
What's the difference between builders and market? Take HTTP for example, aren't Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. the "builders"? Who is the community when it comes to the next USB or HDMI standard? That's why I said "intended users". May be a couple of hackers for ERC-20 in 2015, or a few mega-corps for HDMI.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Alex
@cryptobenkei
That's my point. Originally build by builders, but now managed by "experts"
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Anyone can define or describe a specification. To become a "standard", it can either be through adoption (de facto) or through a standards body approval (de jure). Most successful standards have both. (The standards body may not be as formal as IETF or ISO.)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Alex
@cryptobenkei
Two different approaches: community or standards Body. And I've been through both. My experience with Standards Bodies: They are slow, non-flexible and non-iterative. And also too politicized. Control of the standard, power and ego where more important than the standard itself or the people that needed the standard
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
