Farcaster

A petition to @dwr.eth @v @woj.eth and the rest of the Farcaster team to enable us to remove followers from our accounts 🙏🏼

Why is this important?

The Farcaster Rewards algorithm prioritizes accounts with less followers who are more active. As a result, accounts with larger but inactive followings don’t receive good scores and suffer the consequences

X allows people to remove followers from accounts and I don’t see a reason why Farcaster cannot do the same

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

Made in /bulgaria ⟠ Documenting life at /petar ⟠ Crypto Class 2017 ⟠ Web3 Explorer ⟠ Team @ambirewallet @adex-network ⟠ Opinions my own

Removing followers breaks how the protocol works, not sure how it would practically be achieved. 

It’s the equivalent of forcing someone to stop pointing at you. They’re not touching you, it’s their own action, you can only not point back or just ignore it. Clients like Farcaster (formally Warpcast) have their own layer to handling muting and stuff, but this is part of having a permissionless network.

DX Engineer | Developer Relations at OpenZeppelin | Building orbiter.host | stevedylan.dev/links | opinions are my own

But Farcaster isn’t run on a blockchain, so it’s not an immutable protocol

I don’t see a problem here

It is a mix of onchain and offchain infrastructure that has public/private key cryptography that prevents one actor making unauthorized changes.

It is a mix of onchain and offchain infrastructure that has public/private key cryptography that prevents one actor making unauthorized changes.

https://docs.farcaster.xyz/learn/architecture/overview

I see

Thank you for the explanation 🙏🏼

While this is mostly true there are hubs and infra run outside of Merkle. The main point I was making originally is that: 

1. It’s not currently possible
2. I’m not sure how they would implement it in a way that maintains backwards compatibility

Any breaking protocol changes require all the hubs/nodes to coordinate and update together. Not impossible, just difficult. 

I’m not arguing against your motion at all, just answering your question as to why Farcaster can’t just flip a switch to make it happen.

OK but you realize the people making Farcaster the client are the same people making Farcaster the protocol

I assume they can do whatever they want on the backend (protocol) and the front end (client) level