Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/privacy
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
Privacy is required for mass adoption, and cannot be accomplished if users are identified by public immutable identifiers such as Ethereum addresses. App developers should take note, and not build under the assumption that users can be identified by Ethereum addresses.
5 replies
3 recasts
17 reactions
𝑶𝒕𝒕𝒊🗿✨
@toyboy.eth
While privacy is undeniably important, it’s a misconception to claim that public immutable identifiers like Ethereum addresses inherently prevent it. In fact, Ethereum and similar public blockchains offer a unique foundation for building selective and programmable privacy, which can be far more robust than traditional web systems.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
Yes, it doesn't inherently prevent it. What does is the currently-ingrained assumption developers might make that users = addresses. If that wasn't the case, there would be no justification for EIP-7702, because users would not be tied to their existing EOA.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
𝑶𝒕𝒕𝒊🗿✨
@toyboy.eth
That’s fair, and I agree the real issue isn’t Ethereum addresses themselves but the assumptions baked into how they’re used. The “users = addresses” model is a design convenience that’s become a norm and that’s where privacy probably suffers.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
nuconomy.⌐◨-◨
@nuconomy.eth
Airdrop culture re-inforces this problem too. You lose money by spreading your volume across multiple addresses or rotating them too often. Persistent portable identifiers like ENS records or Farcaster/Lens ID make more sense for a user's public ID and repuation with ZK attestations used to verify onchain activity.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
