horsefacts 🚂 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

20 reactions

horsefacts 🚂 pfp

horsefacts 🚂

@horsefacts.eth

Reviving the "primary address verification" FIP. When we wrote this a year ago, it seemed like a good idea to allow only EOAs as primary, since SCWs may not be deployed everywhere. Now I am much less sure since most modern smart accounts have crosschain counterfactual addresses. Should we leave this up to the user, who can verify smart contract addresses at their own risk? https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/141

17 replies

22 recasts

152 reactions

horsefacts 🚂 pfp

horsefacts 🚂

@horsefacts.eth

The main downside is that it would be possible to verify older SCWs that are not deployed cross chain, like older Gnosis Safes. (tagging in a motley assortment of people who use primary addresses, smart accounts, or both @woj.eth @wilsoncusack @henri @dcposch.eth @koeppelmann.eth @jacek @symmetry @deployer @betashop.eth @vrypan.eth)

1 reply

1 recast

7 reactions

andrew pfp

My spiciest of takes is that 4337 SCWs are not here to stay in their current form, and the DX of “on the client to check” is not going to be checked in practice, so not worth

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

payton ↑ pfp

I think it's a good move to support SCWs. Ultimately, the Farcaster protocol should build to meet market demand, which includes adoption of 4337. There's a growing demand for SCWs, so this feels like a fair update that clients can adopt as they see fit. IMO, it's up to the client to prevent their users from verifying an unsupported SCW (or they could block SCWs entirely). Similar to how extension / mobile app wallets warn users from sending funds to unknown addresses.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

FireDawn pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

SVVVG3 pfp

me after reading this tbh

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Wilson Cusack pfp

Yeah seems silly to only allow EOA

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

woj pfp

> Should we leave this up to the user, who can verify smart contract addresses at their own risk? I think so! From dev perspective we had this in mind when we considered SCWs for super wallet implementation And a user who defaults to using SCW, like coinbase smart wallet, can be classified as a power user who is aware of risks related to using a wallet that doesnt have the full chain support

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jacek.degen.eth 🎩 pfp

Jacek.degen.eth 🎩

SCWs as primary wallets work for me. DEGEN chain doesn’t fully support them yet, but most users know that. We can add a note in the FAQ to warn users about potential issues on DEGEN chain and let them decide at their own risk.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

MOΞ pfp

+1. I was literally going to ask about this in a public post today 👍

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

kompreni 🚂 pfp

I would say allow it. If it becomes an issue, developers can also start checking for bytecode at the address on the intended chain if verification_type = 1, and alert the user if there isn't any (or fallback to a non-primary address).

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

helladj™ pfp

I want to remove my wallet from my farcaster account, but at this point, I am way too scared.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alex pfp

@alexgrover.eth

I've personally experienced the downside of having a SCW connected - my zksync airdrop went to my safe (counterfactual deploy not possible) and it was a HUGE pain to recover it. I would have been more gung ho on letting users choose in the past, but given the potential downsides and (guessing) limited number of people using SCWs as their primary I feel like it's not worth it

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

phil pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Darken pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Nadya pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dragon pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

(∎, ∆) Arslan 🎩🔵 pfp

(∎, ∆) Arslan 🎩🔵

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Indrissa Herrera pfp

Indrissa Herrera

@indrissaherrera

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Sandeep base.eth pfp

Sandeep base.eth

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction