Interoperability in this context is a red herring. Specs and protocols compete, and eventually there is capitulation to the winner that gets the most support and thus most tools, in the most coding languages, for the most OS's, with the most end users, skin in the game, etc.
Interoperability is not easy even when you cooperate. People use different languages to program in on both the base/native level, and then in implementations at app level, and then syncing over protocol/specs is another issue.
Even LN implementations are not fully interop.
Interoperability just means people using the same thing, but these are all different things (Slashtags, Web5, nostr) despite them solving some overlapping use cases. So what is really needed is some combination of migration, resolvers, aliasing, conversion, support for multiple formats in clients, etc, etc.
You probably won't see much of that at this stage. This is not to say that Synonym is closed-minded or stubborn, so much as all of our teams have to manage our priorities. Synonym has actively researched, contacted, and collaborated as often as possible, but this environment, so far is honestly one of the more hostile and collaboration-disinterested I have encountered. Very competitive.
I personally think managing keys across formats, resolving/aliasing, is an interesting problem, but until there are actually two popular formats, it is merely a curiosity and academic challenge, thus not a priority.
Given the (current) lack of interoperability, are you concerned that a small pool of users may be spread too thin amongst the various protocols, thus making it even more difficult for any one protocol to achieve network effects?
Given the open source nature of the protocols, what do you see as the best way for protocols to attract users? Court a centralized entity to dedicate itself to a protocol and perform business development functions for that specific protocol?
reply