a hardware wallet -> a cold storage #185
Conversation
We shouldn't claim Parity Signer as a something which "Turns your smartphone into a hardware wallet" . Simply because it confuses user: in the first place, Parity Signer doesn't turn user's phone into a *wallet*, and it doesn't turn it into a *hardware wallet* especially. We need to fix it everywhere we declare so.
|
I disagree. Parity Signer is air-gapped hardware wallet (as the wiki pages states, this could be a mean of cold storage: "Use a offline Bitcoin Hardware wallet") - we satisfy all 4 points in the linked wiki page. Why do you claim it's not a wallet? The only difference being that there is no way to create a transaction from within the app? If that's the case it's trivial to add, but if we do that only to be compliant with some vague definition of a "wallet" IMHO there its no point. |
|
No this PR is correct. The difference is simple: Physical access protection. If you loose your hardware wallet - you are not in the same trouble as you are when you loose your parity signer phone. |
One important property of the wallet is that typical wallets hold coins.. Parity Signer doesn't know anything (and shouldn't) about the coins.. Isn't MyCrypto a wallet? Isn't it a confusion when user (for whatever reason) have to use 2 wallets (with a current wording) to send a transaction? |
|
I disagree.
I've not seen any such confusions in my talks, on Twitter or Reddit. I think on the opposite that the term hardware helps us a lot, because users who know what a hardware wallet is, will associate it with what they know, and Ledger or Trezor do need an additional software to send their transactions. |
that's a valid argument.
We (at Parity) are here not to bullshit people in favor to gain more installs. So, we have to be as strict as possible in our wordings, in respect to this specific tool. Consider Signer as a tool, not as a complete product. It's not our goal to have a great marketing or a lot of users with Signer, just because the "market" is not really defined for. What we really want - it is an adoption. With this specific tool, the adoption can be archived only and only if we remain to be as correct as possible in the tool design and wording as well. Maybe the "cold storage" isn't the best, but it is definitely more correct and less dangerous wording (in respect to Signer) than "hardware wallet" in respect to Parity Signer IMHO. |
@ligi That's a fair point, although on the page linked by Alexey, you can find at least "Pi wallet - cold storage", which suffers from exactly the same issue, yet is listed as "Hardware Wallet". So since the definition of Hardware Wallet is not super strict about what security model it assumes, I'd be in favour of keeping the name, but adding a comprehensive section of our threat model and security assumptions (should contain comparison with other devices as well). I'm 100% sure that we should never mention Parity Signer as a safe replacement for hardware wallets like Ledger or Trezor, but calling it merely a "Cold Storage" is equally misleading - in my view cold storage is something that should be used infrequently, potentially storing large amounts of coins (sic!) and using such storage is generally hard (involves some additional steps). |
good points! |
|
Why don't you just call it "offline signer"? I think this is what it actually is. Yes wording is hard - b it a hardware wallet as then people would assume it has the same security guarantees as a TREZOR - wut IMHO there should be a differentiation in naming between a device like a TREZOR and this model (which has it's use cases) - I also support this in WallETH - because I think it is useful - but I would never call it a hardware wallet as then people would assume it has the same security guarantees as a TREZOR - which it does not have. But I would also not call this raspberry PI solution a hardware wallet. Yes the lines are blurry - but IMHO still important to draw them - so thanks for the initiative @fckt While we are at it. I would also change:
into
take them as an example: https://www.qubes-os.org
|
I like the term! |
No, it's not. And despite the name, neither is MyEtherWallet. They don't store any value (sensitive information), which is the primary requirement for using the analogy at all IMO. |
de-facto (for today), yes. Historically, people are still consider these services as (online) wallets. Btw, regarding Signer, how one can call something a wallet if that something has no clue of how much coins it contains? Wouldn't it better to call it a "bank box" or just a "vault", for example? |
|
You could view this as a debate about definitions, and in that case it really doesn't matter how confusing or wrong the terminology is - whatever people use will become the de-facto "correct" term. If you look at it in a more useful manner though, as an analogy, then MEW/MC aren't analogous to wallets at all. No amount of incorrect usage of the word changes that. I'm of the opinion that terminology should actually be useful and intuitive to users, not a maze of illogical rhetoric. The best time to fix bad terminology is yesterday, and the second best time is today. See https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/what-defines-a-hardware-wallet/1854/4, I've already written up a small glossary of which terms I use and why - as well as terms I find confusing/conflicting. |
|
I'll add my 5 satoshi to this discussion. A cold wallet is a pair from an address-private key that has never been used anywhere and is not tied directly to any device or program. and no matter what it is generated and how it is stored. This may be an hardware or a program. Our goal is secure storage and transactions. Therefore, we must look at a different perspective - from cold to hot wallet. |
What do you mean by "never sued anywhere"? If I use my everyday desktop to generate a PK on MEW, then save that PK to my desktop but never use it to sign a transaction, is the corresponding address a "cold wallet" until I send something out of it? If that's the case, this definition is not only misleading, it's completely contrary to what we generally ascribe to cold wallets. Security has very little to do with how much something is used, it's about how it's used. |
|
@AtLeastSignificant A simple example, I will write this in a will to my grandchildren. Then they will decide themselves, they will use these assets and it does not matter to me what wallet will be used, but I will not need to store a smartphone for them, which will have the battery die or it will be a coinbase account "inherited" (lol) |
|
@General-Beck what does any of that have to do with security? Who is present when you're writing your will? Who will have access to it between when it's written and when it's received by your grandchildren? If somebody does have access to it, will they be able to steal the funds? Your example doesn't answer any of these questions, thus it's not an example that helps to explain why your definition is useful. The point of using specific (technical) language for things like this is to quickly guarantee a certain set of properties. What properties are guaranteed by your definition of "cold wallet"? |
|
@Tbaut could I ask you to comment the resolution on the issue? Just to make it clear for people involved in the discussion |
|
Sure, I want to cut the discussion short. We don't say parity signer is a hardware wallet, we say "you can turn your phone into a hardware wallet" which is fine. |
It's really not fine... but glad we have decided to use misleading incorrect verbiage for the sake of marketing and not just leaving it up in the air. I'll add it to my list of "except for..." when talking about commonly accepted terms / meanings. |
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardware_wallet
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage
We shouldn't claim Parity Signer as a something which "Turns your smartphone into a hardware wallet" . Simply because it confuses user: in the first place, Parity Signer doesn't turn user's phone into a wallet, and it doesn't turn it into a hardware wallet especially.
We need to fix it everywhere we declare it so (blogposts, wikis etc.).