Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Pete Horne
@horneps
This is not a criticism, but an observation as I pondered key security; the introduction of ENS names incentivising social capital aggregation to a single address has made wallet security a lot harder than with anonymous addresses that have no incentive for aggregation and hence allow many wallets to decentralise risk.
6 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
Boris Mann
@boris
Re-using addresses for every app is the original sin. We could’ve normalized deriving a new one per app.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
🎣
@broke
Decentralized public social capital aggregation is not bad? What's wrong with 6529s 3 addy vault setup? And delegatecash (would've been cool if that was built on ens). Obv u could resolve ur .eth to a new addy too
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
nicholas 🧨
@nicholas
The mistake most apps make is associating Follows with addresses, when they should be associated with ENSs or equivalents, instead. The entire "your address is your resumé" meta made no sense in a world of evolving security concerns and EOA key rotation. Smart accounts may solve this by separating Account from PK.
3 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Alex Van De Sande
@avsa
We’re aware of this and in fact have sponsored not one but two projects with ens for on-chain privacy.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Stas
@stas
I actually think we should start addressing this. Sadly ENS is still lacking the necessary dev UX to pragmatically handle such needs. We wrote about it a while ago https://paragraph.xyz/@velodrome/a-call-for-ens-adoption
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
beijixiong
@beijixiong
that is good
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
