You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 7, 2024. It is now read-only.
Hi,
as you can imagine, typing in a wrongly spelled / mistyped password into the trezor-device when opening a new (empty) wallet can be pretty devastating. Dont ask me how I know.
The Trezor-Suite implements a double check that requires you to put in your passphrase twice if the wallet is found to be empty.
I understand that with metamask such an empty-detection is not trivial to implement. However I would argue, for user-safety, that the dialog that prompts the address-numbers (organized in pages of 5 addresses) would benefit from a button "double-check passphrase", that the user could click on and go through the passphrase-procedure again to see if the same addresses will be derived from the second attempt.
Mistyped passwords can happen due to user-mistakes, or, if the passphrase is entered on the trezor-device, even touch-screen shenanigans.
I am not sure if it can be easily detected if the passphrase was used at all or if only the standard account was returned from the device. If such detection is possible the enable-status of such button could be linked to this condition.
Also if there are funds detected within the displayed page of 5 addresses (if any address has funds other than 0.00000 ETH) such a button could be grayed out.
If a full empty-check can be easily implemented (iterating over all networks for all addresses over a given page), then i would suggest that double-entering the passphrase should become mandatory if an empty wallet is detected.
I think for user-clarity a hint (when the mouse hovers over the button) could explain its purpose:
"Re-enter your passphrase to check your spelling. This is helpful to ensure the correctness of your passphrase when opening empty wallets."
This is purely a safety improvement suggestion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Hi,
as you can imagine, typing in a wrongly spelled / mistyped password into the trezor-device when opening a new (empty) wallet can be pretty devastating. Dont ask me how I know.
The Trezor-Suite implements a double check that requires you to put in your passphrase twice if the wallet is found to be empty.
I understand that with metamask such an empty-detection is not trivial to implement. However I would argue, for user-safety, that the dialog that prompts the address-numbers (organized in pages of 5 addresses) would benefit from a button "double-check passphrase", that the user could click on and go through the passphrase-procedure again to see if the same addresses will be derived from the second attempt.
Mistyped passwords can happen due to user-mistakes, or, if the passphrase is entered on the trezor-device, even touch-screen shenanigans.
I am not sure if it can be easily detected if the passphrase was used at all or if only the standard account was returned from the device. If such detection is possible the enable-status of such button could be linked to this condition.
Also if there are funds detected within the displayed page of 5 addresses (if any address has funds other than 0.00000 ETH) such a button could be grayed out.
If a full empty-check can be easily implemented (iterating over all networks for all addresses over a given page), then i would suggest that double-entering the passphrase should become mandatory if an empty wallet is detected.
I think for user-clarity a hint (when the mouse hovers over the button) could explain its purpose:
"Re-enter your passphrase to check your spelling. This is helpful to ensure the correctness of your passphrase when opening empty wallets."
This is purely a safety improvement suggestion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: