walletbeat

Wallets charging for clear signing feels like browsers charging for CSS support

https://x.com/pcaversaccio/status/1981623813180637673

Some further thoughts on 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. 🔏

/walletbeat's goal isn't to prescribe how hardware wallet manufacturers run their business.

But it 𝘪𝘴 to protect users' safety, and to maintain wallet ecosystem health through open competition and interoperability.

Part of ensuring users' security is @vitalik.eth's walkaway test.
As it applies for hardware wallets, where usability 𝘪𝘴 security:

If the hardware wallet manufacturer disappears, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦?

Contributor @ /walletbeat.

Censorship resistance requires privacy.

As a software wallet developer, 𝗜 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿 to offer clear signing to my users for them to use their hardware wallet.

Without permissionless integration, there is a case to be made that the hardware wallet manufacturer is actively standing in the way of their users' safety. At least for users of wallets for which they have not given permission to use clear signing, for any reason.

In light of the Bybit hack, it's clear that clear signing is a baseline safety/security requirement for all wallets.

A company 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 for such features doesn't inherently violate this principle. But what does is permissioning the ability for wallets to integrate them.