Why would they have to circumvent anything? The app relies on the user providing valid credentials, no circumvention needed. It just has to mimic an official client.
I’m not sure what you mean by “they aren’t doing it”. WEI doesn’t exist yet, obviously nobody is blocking clients who aren’t attested.
More to the point, even the author of this proposal has recognized this is an issue, identified it as so in the proposal, then failed to put forward a workable solution. That’s my problem.
They aren't possible for the network to unilaterally impose on unwilling users. They're still possible if the user actually wants it, by just setting their client's DoH server to one that does them.
I was referring to banning of users who use third party clients and I do not think it would be particularly hard to do if they really wanted to. You can for example use request patterns or the fact that the unofficial clients do not autoupdate. I doubt that they would go that far, but it would be trivial if they really wanted to.
I'm thinking they probably don't want unauthorized clients just to lower the support threshold. Some percentage of people will hold them responsible for broken third-party clients.
Enforcing it at the bridge level would break so many setups, apps, custom integrations that even if they try this, they'll dial it back from the avalanche of outrage.
It sounds like an alternative where they just don't pretend they support the thing the don't support was proposed, and shot down because that means they won't show up in UI that only lists things that support the thing?
That Uniswap UI is out there and literally nothing can stop it.
reply