You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 14, 2024. It is now read-only.
There have been cases where people, including protocol devs, take "resource restricted devices/environments" to mean that Waku only focuses on this. And that, therefore, there's a need for some other protocol that doesn't have this restriction.
This presents a false picture. One idea to focus it to be more positive, such as being efficient, running everywhere, and being modular. We are doing this to some extent in https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/10/ but could probably do it better.
Also Nimbus seems to have encountered a similar problem, cc @arnetheduck
Acceptance criteria
Consensus on, if, and how to re-phrase it
Updated main specs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yeah, I agree with the terminology change. "Efficient" could also more easily imply -> "to the extent required by the environment". Still catching up so I might have missed it, but was there a specific trigger for this?
Not actively working on it, I'd like to let it simmer a bit and see if we can make the reframing a bit more cohesive. For example, could we turn 5 goals here https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/10/#motivation-and-goals into something that everyone can enumerate easily and make it stand out from comparative solutions?
Problem
There have been cases where people, including protocol devs, take "resource restricted devices/environments" to mean that Waku only focuses on this. And that, therefore, there's a need for some other protocol that doesn't have this restriction.
This presents a false picture. One idea to focus it to be more positive, such as being efficient, running everywhere, and being modular. We are doing this to some extent in https://rfc.vac.dev/spec/10/ but could probably do it better.
Also Nimbus seems to have encountered a similar problem, cc @arnetheduck
Acceptance criteria
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: