Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-updates
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Snapchain is launching soon! It's a blockchain like system that will be 10x - 100x faster than hubs and much more reliable when syncing between Farcaster apps. If you don't run a hub, no action is needed. If you do run a hub you will need to: - Set up a Snapchain node before Mar 29th - Cut over to reading / writing from your node before Apr 12 - Shut down your hubs after Apr 15th More details in next cast.
17 replies
45 recasts
209 reactions
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Will adding a signer be free after the launch?
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
No, that's something we need to work on post launch
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
wait are ed25519 signers no longer going to be on OPMainnet?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Might be able to move them to Snapchain and get zero cost signers
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
hmm, then I would like to nudge against this, censorship resistance for key revocations/rotations I think is important for decentralized identity. BSky currently has this problem with did:plc, @edmundedgar.eth has done some good thinking here. maybe you can add signers, but revoking them happens onchain? but L2s are so so cheap already, I question the need for free-signer-adding given you have to pay for an FID anyway & adding signers doesn't happen that often https://warpcast.com/edmundedgar.eth/0xe8fb71b9 https://warpcast.com/edmundedgar.eth/0xf49b6959
2 replies
1 recast
3 reactions
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
Also keeping ed25519 canonically on OPMainnet allows signed messages to be validated in smart contracts easily, even on different L2s with message passing. If new signers are only on Snapchain, there would need to be some sort of oracle bridge for smart contracts to know about new signers, unless Snapchain were to have it's own "L3" construction.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
1. L2s have a single sequencer. Snapchain has two different entities publishing transactions (Warpcast and Neynar) and plan to add more soon. Would argue we are equal or better in terms of censorship resistance. 2. No one uses OP mainnet unfortunately, so we need an oracle bridge anyway to get it to other chains where people are actually launching contracts.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
hmm, quick response in no particular order: 1. Single sequencers have nothing to do with censorship resistance, all L2s (with training wheels removed) means you can do forced txn inclusion at the L1. It's the L1 we are always referencing when we talk about censorship resistance. Shared sequencing is good for "liveness" which you could consider to be 'fast/realtime censorship resistance' but that's maybe important for DeFi liquidations, not identity. That being said, shared/based sequencing is uponly from here. 2. Once a state root is committed from L2 back to L1, the state root contains all the information needed to show what the state of the FC FID signer contract is. And like #1, L2 silos are going to be completely gone faster than ppl think, w/ Succinct & Espresso basically ensuring all Optimism chains are going to be compatible, so I think choosing Optimism was a smart choice in retrospect 🫡
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
FWIW, I agree on moving signers to Snapchain -- but want to gently push back on point 2, bc @dfern.eth has a point Because OP Mainnet settles to Eth Mainnet, we can use DA bridges to move the data to Base or other Eth rollups. But with Snapchain, we'll need a signer set (ideally the write node quorum or stronger) to act as the oracle End of day, I don't think anyone actually cares about the security of the data bridge. But there is a difference here between L2 <> L2 and Snapchain <> L2 (unless there is a plan to settle Snapchain to Eth L1 at some point)
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
