fc.proto

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?

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine

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)

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

cypherpunk wannabe, engineer working on @frames /open-frames /opencast
https://stephancill.co.za create stories at https://stories.steer.fun

cc @v 

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

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.

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.

Software developer, open source enthusiast, privacy advocate.

Clear Wallet Open-source privacy focused wallet: https://clear-wallet.flashsoft.eu/


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.

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