Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rish
@rish
small experiment coming soon 👀
17 replies
4 recasts
50 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Since UI is from block explorer this must be some contract. 194 is your fid, and because you can already resolve custody address to FID (with the original OP identity contract) it means that the address in screenshot is not custody address but a verification address that was published as verification message to hubs. So simple this is an on-chain resolver of verification addresses to FID. If my presumption is correct the method is wrong because it should return uint256[] instead of uint256 as the FC protocol allows a single address to be added as verified to multiple FIDs.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Manan
@manan
> the FC protocol allows a single address to be added as verified to multiple FIDs. This was changed. Verified addresses are now globally unique.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Sanjay
@sanjay
Yes, FIP: https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/114
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Tested it. That's the case, if you verify one address it will be removed from the other FID. I mean you can have the custody address and verified address be the same, and also you can have a custody address being verified on another FID, but yeah now it's the case you can't have the same verified address on 2 profiles. Don't see what was the issue with having the same address on multiple profiles, especially because an address can't own multiple FIDs it means that you can't signal you own more than 2 FID(with one custody set as verified for other FID)... So you need a third-party provider to make the relation that x wallet owns 100 FIDs when before you could have had that build-in protocol.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
