nook

i disconnected the nook signer and all my casts made from nook got deleted 🥲

ensdata.net ✦ pugson.net/rfe ✦ metadata.vision ✦ 𝙿𝚁𝙴𝚅: @rainbow 🌈 ✦ 𝙽𝙾𝚆: 𝚆𝙾𝚁𝙺𝙸𝙽𝙶 𝙾𝙽 ???

Umm, 😳 how is that possible?
They were ultimately written to the protocol, no?
Did you expect that behavior @pugson

Farcaster Devs

Until the signer architecture is improved, I’ll only use Warpcast as my write-enabled Farcaster client.

I never want to worry about accidentally revoking a signer and breaking all the discussions I’m in once those casts inevitably get dropped by the network.

Can devs DO something?

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.

🐵 ← 🙈🙉🙊 → /phil →  phil.cockfield.net, db.team →  
ƒ(🌳) →  🧫 /sys  ←  @cell <T>

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

/frontend dev・founder/decentralized data wrangler /blockhead・UI/UX abstractionist・DeFi/web3 builder・dropout・24・prev /dydx, ritual.net・x.com/darryl__yeo

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 “client opportunity” rhetoric has a defacto hole in the sack!

Thanks for helping me sync my mental model with current reality @pugson & @darrylyeo

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

Called out (rightly)!

Running back and refreshing my mental model from the beginning, to make sure my design response isn't based on a kinked up mental foundations.

Great prompt to think hard about the primitives again! Thanks (🙇🏻‍♀️ 🧠 | 🙊)

https://tinyurl.com/2hdw44b2

cross-ref:(wip):
https://warpcast.com/pjc/0x51f5ea5e