Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-updates
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
FIP: Direct Casts A proposal to make Warpcast's Direct Casts an open standard that any Farcaster client can use. https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/226
6 replies
15 recasts
141 reactions
KMac
@kmacb.eth
This is a bad idea to take on right now. Would shelf this entire idea in favor of other priorities. Full stop. But wait there’s more. Who is ‘Farcaster’ that is operating the server? gc & smh all at the same time. Protocols are rules not organizations. Conflating these leads one to think like a business instead of a headless public good. More gatekeeping‽ really Keep it as wc direct and group casts. Open that if you want but keep it out of Farcaster protocol if it’s not on a node, permissionless & independently verifiable. An idea- Work on creating more flexible app specific context-containers that are ai ready.
1 reply
0 recast
10 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Gatekeeping is maximal because if you didn't check there's a whitelist like we are used to, so it's much worse than a centralized server, as per usual devs will need to request permission from the team not even in an automated way. I mean I am just astonished by the lack of foresight, imagine if you want to get permission to read/send DMs on Twitter, Threads, etc is easier. You can literally make an app in 5 minutes that has those permissions, how blind you must be to understand that writing such poor proposals is a complete disaster from an optics perspective.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
KMac
@kmacb.eth
Devs gonna dev 🤷🏻♂️
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
KMac
@kmacb.eth
More seriously, this is likely the direct result of corporate control of a public good. This ‘working code’ ‘general consensus’ BDFL thing is now probably the last thing I’m concerned about in Farcasterland. The rest they’ve delivered on promises. Keep the dc/gc ‘protocol as MerkleM’s if you want but stop bloating Farcaster.
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Correct, that is how it looks from the outside, building in the open was always only after, many people complained. There's no interest in building in the open, if you do a `find whitelist` command over all proprietary code that the Farcaster team drives I am sure you'll get like 50+ hits... Not trying to be cynical but for me, it seems like the main interest is to appear to be open while trying to retain as much control as possible without suffering too much backlash, that's why there is so much promotion of "openness", if you're open you don't need to promote that, because is just a fact.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
artlu 🎩
@artlu
isn't this needed for the Coinbase Wallet client to hook into?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
KMac
@kmacb.eth
It’s a good question & had crossed my mind when I saw Jesse had liked my reply.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
As I said the justification was flimsy, to say the least, in the dev call it was stated that the whitelist purpose is to limit potential malicious apps, on the GitHub discussion when I pointed out that if you sign with the custody address anything you can lose the account directly not just grant access to DC's( which is also possible at this moment, no one stops you generating a WC token and access DCs with that trough Warpcast API if you sign with custody account) then the justification changed to, we don't want to deliver devs an unstable API that's why is closed off. Literally self-contradiction and self-owning, it's clear the real motive of whitelisting was other to begin with, which erodes trust because I don't see any scenario when scrambeling to offer a strong justification is good optics.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
