EulerLagrange.eth on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp

Channel gating ideas People are going to get very creative.

30 replies

35 recasts

282 reactions

Andy Jagoe pfp

any future for gated channels where casts are private at the protocol level? direct casts is one option, but has a number of ux drawbacks

1 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

You could build a client that encrypts cast content and decrypts it within your client.

4 replies

1 recast

9 reactions

Andy Jagoe pfp

that’s an amazing idea maybe we’ll build this at Fairmint for founders to communicate with investors and GPs to communicate with syndicates/LPs anyone know what the most popular tools for this are today?

4 replies

0 recast

6 reactions

EulerLagrange.eth pfp

EulerLagrange.eth

@eulerlagrange.eth

This is easier to say then it is to implement. If you need it to scale encrypting a cast for many people runs into a lot of complexity.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍 pfp

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍

@deanpierce.eth

I feel like a static symmetric key per channel is fine. It means you can't remove people etc, but it works fine for certain use cases. I spent a bit of time working on something like that a few months ago. https://warpcast.com/deanpierce.eth/0xc7bd00ec

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

EulerLagrange.eth pfp

EulerLagrange.eth

@eulerlagrange.eth

I can easily recast everything into a different channel where it’s decrypted and no one would know who’s leaking it. I don’t know why you’d want to do that will a separate client

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍 pfp

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍

@deanpierce.eth

How is that different from any other scheme? If you send a message to any encrypted group, someone could leak messages anonymously. If leaks become a problem, you could post a message that the channel is compromised, and rebuild with a smaller more trusted community. Ideally channel decryption would be standardized.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

EulerLagrange.eth pfp

EulerLagrange.eth

@eulerlagrange.eth

Fair enough. My point is mostly what problem are you actually solving with encryption? If you need secrecy, why not just host a federated hub, where the messages are purely for some set of fids?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍 pfp

Dean Pierce 👨‍💻🌎🌍

@deanpierce.eth

I mostly like the idea where all channels are just symmetrically encrypted by default with the channel name, so to someone hosting hubs, they would only be able to read well known and advertised channels. Channels with fully random names would be extra private until someone leaks the name.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

EulerLagrange.eth pfp

EulerLagrange.eth

@eulerlagrange.eth

I’m just struggling to see the benefit of doing this where the key is static forever. Encrypted channels I understand, but the name/kwy can be leaked any point in the future. And the fids that are active in the channel is known. It seems like it would work for only small channels, no? Why not group chat?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

EulerLagrange.eth pfp

EulerLagrange.eth

@eulerlagrange.eth

Not saying it’s a bad idea though

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction