Antonio Salazar Cardozo

Will be working to get this merged early this week, thanks for the quick turnaround @ahsan-javaiid !

Also since this is user-facing, cc @VladUXUI @mr-michael.

This is because we're receiving an unexpected first parameter in the `eth_requestAccounts` call, which looks like `{ "eth_accounts": {} }`. In fact, we should be ignoring any parameters to that...

Hmmm… If I'm not mistaken, the same address on RSK is not controlled by the same keys, as far as I understand it. So we can't treat them as the...

> the same recovery phrase in their ecosystem will yield different addresses due to the different default derivation path This ostensibly means the same thing though, right? Though I suppose...

Possible I'm being philosophical instead of practical here; I think the thing to do here is check in with the RSK folks and see if it makes sense to them...

As a side note, if we don't care about the RSK distinction, can't we just redefine `sameAddressBookEntry` to ignore network and drop all the other logic changes in the name...

That concern may be more real than I expected depending on how the ethereum app and RSK app on ledger interact with these addresses, I realize now 😅 Lot of...

> in summary, I don't think this is something to worry or a blocker. Out of office rn so can't go into detail, but my conclusion is the opposite here:...

Latest state of my thinking on this PR: - My concerns still largely stand. I still think my original proposed path is a cleaner approach, though it's ultimately a product...