Patrick Collins

# Short explainer On my ledger wallet, (and... on onther wallets it's different), I initially see: 1. SafeMesssage: `0x25c3d40a39e639a4d0b6e4d2ace5e1281e039c88494d97d8d08f99a6ea75d775` Then, after rejecting, I see: Domain hash: `0xd7162c26b423bceab9e4daa54bc94e5f56561aeeedfd63ef0865e8915c28c476` Message hash: `0x69ed5de3a513ba19cdbb52fe51f181746db2e8472fa036b6c3b18db7f296f22f`...

Wallet's currently _don't_ show `0x0be4bd0dd54b3def00988d595e68c673eac47f799e55ee8bae746e1f941de68a`... They show a weird combination of: > SafeMessage > Domain Hash (2?) > Message Hash (2?) Please let me know if I'm overcomplicating this... Maybe...

The reason for this, is that we are actually signing: ```json { "types": { "SafeMessage": [ { "name": "message", "type": "bytes" } ], "EIP712Domain": [ { "name": "chainId", "type": "uint256"...

Perhaps I'm going too deep down the rabbit hole, but this issue helped inspire this ERC proposal, would love it if ya'll could take a look! https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/standardizing-wallet-information-so-humans-can-actually-know-what-they-are-signing/24295

It feels like it could go into ally first too no? And then get merged into foundry? https://github.com/alloy-rs/alloy/issues/2349

This seems like a great idea, but I'm nervous about people abusing this. Why would I, as a protocol developer, ever us `msg.value` if I can "trick" users into paying...

How do you impersonate an address at all that is not an account you have? I seem to be unable to figure this one out.

Blocked by: https://github.com/walletbeat/walletbeat/pull/161

BitBox & NGRAVE: https://github.com/walletbeat/walletbeat/pull/214 Still need: - SafePal - useBurner

> 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....