Matthew
@matthew
there should be an anon account for every community. must own X amount of community coin to speak. should be a product feature inside of WC when casting in channel tbh
4 replies
3 recasts
27 reactions
Nick T
@nt
maybe protocol feature, not product I don't want @dwr.eth + co to know that I've casted, just like I don't want @woj.eth to (nothing against them personally)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew
@matthew
i think most ppl would trade off the convenience of having to go to another site vs tap a button. also, if merkle did do it i trust that they’d preserve anonymity.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Nick T
@nt
most people would have kept making telephone calls over creating an email account - I think this is a similar argument line. if anonymity is the feature, anonymity should be the feature
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew
@matthew
not sure i get the analogy, but a) all of these anon accounts have someone in the middle anyway and b) casting random thoughts anonymously is not that consequential
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nick T
@nt
@anoncast verifiably never stores the mapping from fid -> cast (zk). you couldn't verify that for WC unless feature was in protocol itself. it can be consequential if anonymity is broken or backdoored, just like it is consequential for social more broadly - myriad examples here in the last decade
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew
@matthew
unless WC open sources its code yeah, but a lot of stuff here is in “trust us” territory and ppl do bc merkle has earned it also i agree about anonymity in some cases (like maybe you’d attach a zk anon chat to nouns dao proposals)… my point is that a super easy toggle right in the WC app is prob revealed preference more important than verifiability
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
