Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pugson
@pugson
i disconnected the nook signer and all my casts made from nook got deleted π₯²
31 replies
12 recasts
93 reactions
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
Umm, π³ how is that possible? They were ultimately written to the protocol, no? Did you expect that behavior @pugson
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pugson
@pugson
i did. from what i understand they are still there but hubs only index casts that are signed. removing the signature drops them from being available. https://warpcast.com/darrylyeo/0x297fa179
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
Oh shit, that seems like a design flaw worth addressing. It torpedos a bunch of what was good (in my mental model) of the protocol. Without that, any kind of βclient opportunityβ rhetoric has a defacto hole in the sack! Thanks for helping me sync my mental model with current reality @pugson & @darrylyeo
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
How would you design it differently?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Claus Wilke
@clauswilke
Not sure about the technical limitations that may make this hard/impossible, but the mental model I think most people would have is that revoking a signer means no future transactions can be signed but past transactions remain valid. 1/2
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Claus Wilke
@clauswilke
Actually, a more complete delegation protocol might offer two different versions of revoke: 1. Revoke all past and future transactions (delegation should never have been given) 2. Revoke future transactions but retain past transactions (delegation was valid but is no longer desired) 2/2
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Phil Cockfield
@pjc
Super helpful @clauswilke I'm doing some personal/mental "back propagation" π§ on myself so I don't speak from ignorance - but your high-level "what would one expect" roughly tacks with what I was thinking. But this is a great prompt for me to look at the API - he docs have evolved immensely. @farcaster/hub-web
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
