Farcaster Devs

can farcaster apps that custody a signer revoke the signer themselves without the user having to approve it?

if not, may make sense to be possible, for example if an app gets compromised, it should be able to revoke them

Building Larry, FOSS via @frames, @framesfun /open-frames to help decentralized social win. a16z CSX23. farcasterchannels.com farcaster.id

That's a good idea, and feasible in theory (may require some change in the signers smart contract, to allow an additional revocation address). However, not a good idea today, because this would invalidate everything message signed by the app. Message ordering will fix this, I think.

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine

Actually, message ordering could allow an app to self-sign a tombstone message for the signer, without any smart contract changes.

A new revision of the Snapchain paper is now out. 

It might be one of the most important improvements we've made to the Farcaster experience. 

- Message delays will be fixed 
- Adding apps will cost nothing 
- Removing apps won't delete data 

https://warpcast.notion.site/Snapchain-v2-Public-10e6a6c0c101807aadfacbcddda8ce4f

After revoking the signature, the related cast being deleted should be resolved in future hub versions.

After revoking the signature, the related cast being deleted should be resolved in future hub versions.
https://warpcast.com/v/0xb1865c19