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 }}
Repository navigation
Spec: hardware-wallet signing as a signer kind behind signerd (Ledger/Trezor) — lower priority #78
In scope, lower priority — a spec + discussion issue, not slated for immediate build (~months out).
Why
Biggest credibility / safety gap for a self-custodial wallet; serious users expect it.
A HW signer fits the key-isolation thesis better than a software key in signerd: the device holds the key and signs on-device, so the host — even a perfectly isolated signerd — never has the secret. The device is the isolation.
Slots behind the existing boundary: signerd already owns signing (signing.rs); a HW signer becomes another signer kind, app / agent stay key-less, the policy gate + approval flow are unchanged (the device adds a physical second confirmation).
The hard constraint (design-defining)
EOA HW devices sign secp256k1 only. Railgun private spends use babyjubjub (railgun_keys.rs) — a HW device cannot produce them. So HW covers public txs (Send / Swap / approve / shield-deposit) but the private spend path still needs a software key → a split-custody model (HW public, software-keystore private). Spec must define how that split is presented, and whether a HW-only (no-private) mode exists.
Open questions to spec
Vendor scope: Ledger first, or Ledger + Trezor (Stage-1 wants 3+)? Trezor adds transport complexity.
Activity
docs: mark hardware-wallet signing in scope (lower priority) (#79)