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
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
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Ah ok. Well My top req is channel privacy, but I do understand if the protocol doesn’t make that easy.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
