walletbeat

gm

One of the upcoming attributes for Walletbeat is whether wallets integrate with immutable frontend technology.

IPFS and/or ERC-6860 for web apps, or bundled fully-local frontends.

Probably more options out there, but need to get off zero.

So TL;DR  the safe app frontend was compromised as far back as 19th February.

Compromise happened through leaked infra keys via a safe developer's machine.

They specifically went after bybit but could have hit any one of you

Now after losing $1.5bn can we switch to local apps? https://t.co/U8Wo6lNfTw

Lefteris Karapetsas | Hiring for @rotkiapp

gm

One of the upcoming attributes for Walletbeat is whether wallets integrate with immutable frontend technology.

IPFS and/or ERC-6860 for web apps, or bundled fully-local frontends.

Probably more options out there, but need to get off zero.

https://x.com/LefterisJP/status/1894785187906789627

Contributor @ /walletbeat.

Censorship resistance requires privacy.

What does it mean for a wallet to "integrate IPFS"?
It does 𝗻𝗼𝘁 mean "just forward all IPFS traffic to some random IPFS-over-HTTP gateway".
All content hashes must be verified locally.

Bitcoin Believer, Ethereum Explorer,  NFT collectooor and Digital Marketer. zk/acc

Great question. It could take multiple forms.
Some approaches I can think of:
- Offer to redirect well-known IPFS HTTP gateways to the same CID but on alternatives that do client-side verification (and perhaps inject the necessary content/sw scripts to ensure that this is actually the case).
- Register the extension as a service worker handling IPFS gateway requests, have it fetch data from IPFS gateways but verify contents before serving it to the browser. Manifest v3 might make this difficult, would need to check.
- Offer an option to provide a URL to your own self-hosted Kubo node, similar to how extensions let you choose the RPC endpoint URL for Ethereum RPCs.
- Just bundle the latest version of Uniswap's IPFS frontend as static extension files as part of the extension's build process, and inject a content script on the non-IPFS uniswap frontend that asks the user if they would rather visit the extension-bundled version of this frontend. Repeat for other popular dapps.

This is a tough one. For something like Safe, I’d think Local/IPFS build available. But for something like MetaMask or Rabby what would an IPFS distro even look like? Local build available still covers both cases. Might be better terminology though.