LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:27

No, the delegation can always be revoked by the compromised private key

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:21

Question... would 7702 potentially allow a user to regain control over a compromised wallet? i.e. by assigning a new 'signer' wallet and turn the compromised wallet into a multisig. Could be an interesting use cases as there plenty compromised EOAs out there...

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:15

ok, so gnosisscan doesn't show delegations yet

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:02

Look at the address, no revoke, no txs after this one

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:01

well actually it's not exactly a bug - it's really not a contract - it's an eoa

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:01

either a gnosisscan bug or the user revoked after this

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:00

Calling to self. Two transfers. Not a contract.

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:59

Particularly the behavior section

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:57

It speaks nothing about revoking the part of setting the code of the account

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:56

But the delegation will stay forever untill you delegate to the 0 address

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:56

I mean, you can delegate a smart contract that then permits the paymaster to do something based on a second signature (other than the delegation one)

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:54

I'm not sure what that means, can you elaborate?

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:54

So I'm talking about a non permanent batched tx signature. Which would grant a paymaster the option to move the tokens from the EOA that signed it

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:49

A wise anon once told me, folks always discount the risk they pose to others down to 0

LobsterDAO 🦞

06 May 2025 17:16

Why are we building on a prison island

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:25

That's the discrepancy I'm trying to resolve here

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:15

as i said it's not the same as contract

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:02

The context about this transaction is https://x.com/koeppelmann/status/1917648960820318422

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:01

it's just that gnosisscan probably doesn't display the delegation yet

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:01

you need a second txn to revoke

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 16:01

What am I missing 🤔

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:59

https://gnosisscan.io/tx/0x170f333262077f931dc81eeb72eef71f1f7edd27d88e657149109392ff55becc

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:58

Saving you a click
https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7702

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:57

You aleays read the spec of 7702

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:56

I'm quite sure I saw a tx on gnosis that sent tokens to two distinct address without a permanent delegation if I recall

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:55

in any case allowing the paymaster to move your tokens is not a thing

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:54

7702 does not support non permanent delegation

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:51

Sir, unless you have a logical argument, i will not be replying to you. Not interested in you quotes 😂

LobsterDAO 🦞

07 May 2025 15:42

Seen that in the messages after, thanks

LobsterDAO 🦞

06 May 2025 16:21

Bullish on the frontier builders.
https://x.com/OpenStableIndex/status/1919643582991925450