Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
If we added one feature to channels to make this more likely? https://warpcast.com/0xen/0x45fc4b8b
41 replies
0 recast
38 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Everyone saying token-gated as their preferred method of privacy: Are you imagining a world with no moderation, or tokens that can be burned?
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
I imagine governance that is a smart contract, so it can work in arbitrary ways on a per channel basis. In some cases no moderation, in other cases a multisig can burn tokens, in other cases it can be fully democratic or something else, etc.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
How do you deal with burning the tokens of someone who can front run the burn tx by sending the tokens to a new address?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
I'm imagining the channel contract is similar to an NFT contract representing the channel and its governance. A token is addressed by the idx, not by the holding address.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Good answer! Another important q: If a smart contract controls access policy, in what manner is the privacy actually enforced (since access keys can’t be on chain)?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dean Pierce 👨💻🌎🌍
@deanpierce.eth
Check out this witchcraft: https://zketh.io The UX is wild, but fundamentally it uses the Unirep Protocol to implement fully decentralized NFT gated private subreddits with zk karma, so no one knows who voted for what, but you are guaranteed that the voter was holding the NFT when the identity was generated.
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
I always assumed that the gating is write access, not read access (since I don't think the farcaster protocol is amenable for group e2ee as it is). My naive approach would be something similar to ERC-1271's isValidSignature to decide if an account has a given permission at time of federating.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
