Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
AA experts: ~6 months ago, it was my understanding that passkey wallets weren’t viable because they use cryptography that is too expensive to verify onchain (hence EIP 7212 etc). But now everyone is making them. What changed? 🤔
7 replies
7 recasts
33 reactions
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
Hmm not sure your source 6 months ago. Computation was actually cheaper then pre 4844. < $0.01 for passkey verification onchain.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
sm-stack
@sm-stack
EIP-4844 changed the game, imo. Gas fees reduced more significantly than we thought, which made passkey verification even w/o RIP-7212 reasonable on L2s. RIP-7212 will accelerate the adoption, by lowering the fee even more, similar to the level of ECDSA
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
itai (building dynamic.xyz)
@itai
A few things IMO: 1. low gas cost chains like Base (and gas sponsorships) 2. EIP 7212 native implementation going live in multiple chains, lowering costs significantly 3. End users are getting more used to the concept of passkeys, which was also a blocker before
3 replies
1 recast
9 reactions
Derek
@derekalia.eth
Passkeys are just a way of signing. I dont think It was ever a blocker to AA wallets. I think we are seeing more AA wallets now because of open source examples and the infra is pretty good. Lastly it's so much easier for ppl to use these wallets then something like metamask if your new to crypto.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
greg
@gregfromstl
@wilsoncusack probably knows the answer to this!
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
abstractooor
@konrad
imo 7212 was never that pressing for rollups since the execution cost was already quite cheap
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
Everybody bets that rollups will ship the precompile. Hasn‘t Base agreed?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
