Andrei O. on Warpcast

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-proto

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

Signers (rebranded as app keys) are extremely powerful, but I think they are becoming a disaster waiting to happen. Users are not aware how to manage them, and even if they were, there are no reliable tools to do so. Does anyone else share the same concerns? If so, what can we do to improve them?

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Stephan pfp

It’s also not intuitive that all messages get invalidated once a signer is deleted. Like you mentioned as well, easily rebroadcasting messages from an invalidated signer will not be possible with the rate limits introduced by snapchain right? Strong ordering could help with automatic signer expiry and invalidating signers (all messages after invalidation snap are invalid)

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Stephan pfp

cc @v Moving signers off chain onto hubs would also help with being able to iterate on this more easily

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

Why move them off chain? The way I imagine it is that signer approval/removal OnChainEvents will be included in snaps. So you know when they were added and when they were removed, and you don't need to invalidate all their messages.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Andrei O. pfp

Because the Farcaster protocol will move more to a chain architecture there's no reason to keep fids, signers, or anything on optimism all this data should just be on the Farcaster network, coupled with a good explorer will be much better performance-wise, syncing this data on what's basically two chains is just a bottleneck for performance, has no real benefit other than marketing.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Stephan pfp

Interesting point I think there are benefits to identity being anchored on a general purpose blockchain such as being able to leverage existing infrastructure for sign up payments and identity

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Andrei O. pfp

Payments are the only thing that is harder to replicate on the farcaster network and are a benefit if you keep the sign-up fee. The identity, I mean still is a network consensus that will sync it from OP, so is not a real benefit. So best optimization performance-wise is to have a much simpler payment contract on any chain and that's pretty much it in terms of using an L2. But IMO a network generally needs a token incentive so building a simple token mechanic in the farcaster network that rewards validators long-term might be the better approach and you then solve payments too.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

If you see the upcoming changes as a move to a blockchain architecture, you should consider Farcaster an L2 (or L3, depending on where you count from). OP provides much higher assurances than FC, and it's reasonable to anchor your identity (fid) and permission management (signers/app keys) there.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Andrei O. pfp

I mean for best performance would be practically an L0, and the type of transactions would be, like, cast, follow, etc, some transactions would have metadata similar to blobs to allow deletion, for example, if I delete a cast users will not be able to find that data anywhere(just that I deleted a cast), probably only fids will be immutable, but a social network needs a lot of data that's not only mutable but also erasable in terms of history. Looking a bit at EOS for example which was inspired by EVM, was made just as a more specialized chain with additional features, the same probably is best here, a specialized blockchain made and optimized for social interaction. Right now the alignment with EVM is super low, it's just more vibes and the fact that minimal data is stored in some EVM contracts, In terms of what Facracster needs from EVM is just wallet compatibility(to keep the vibes and connection to EVM), but it doesn't need to be a rollup or fully EVM compatible. Anyway not an easy task though.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction