4 ms·

Lol the company I am working for is doing some kind of wallet that basically allow you to keep and use your private key without a (shitty) browser extension lik

Lol the company I am working for is doing some kind of wallet that basically allow you to keep and use your private key without a (shitty) browser extension like metamask. You basically just get your key back by authenticating with your google account and pressing your finger at touchid. Basically allow people to have same web 2.0 experience when using web3 apps.

fallat 5y ago
I don't get the hate for Metamask. You can connect hardware wallets to it and its actual UX is good.
- timdaub 5y ago
  We can't it be a browser-integrated feature? That we can store keys, have them sign messages and e.g. unlock the signature function through e.g. a hardware wallet or a master password?
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    .. Because major browsers will need to integrate it and they haven't. You can build things yourself more easily than you can convince say chrome to build something (which is the whole point of extensions, really). What you seem to be asking is just metamask to be integrated directly into chrome, which is a nice ask but not done to the right people (ask google/firefox) and its lack does not turn web3 into a 'Stupid Idea'. There's a lot of extension functionality I'd like straight in the browser itself but it's not the extension's fault that browser devs haven't included it.
- verdverm 5y ago
  They were uploading significant details of failed transactions to Segment. If that ever happened to you, they have a connection of a wallet address to other personal details.
- officialchicken 5y ago
  Good UX isn't security, MM and Infuria are owned by the same person (very centralized), you can't change your secret phrase, sentry.js doesn't secure a react app very well at all... etc. etc. etc. I'm not a hater (actually I'm a user), but I am pointing out a wide variety of issues that should be publicly discussed.
officialchicken 5y ago
Wait, let me get this straight - your company has the non-sharded encryption key (not the user), it centralized by your service, and all of that is subject to google's whims. Yep, sounds like the heart of web3.
- evv 5y ago
  Metamask is distributed through Google as well, and it operates in Chrome. It would be easier to let me know what web3 technology is not subject to Google's whims!
  - officialchicken 5y ago
    I dunno, say, Brave browser??? Just spitballing here.
  - cyberge99 5y ago
    IPFS
- Spivak 5y ago
  If you want something to have broad appeal you have to hide the key management. Users will never keep track of keys or wallets and they will lose them regularly. Most services solve this by not having the key be the source of truth for anything (i.e. iMessage, WhatsApp, and SSH) so that you can rotate them on a whim. Other services solve this by just hosting the key when it's actually important (Bitlocker). This is just an example of the latter. Sites that support "Login with Google/FB/Email" aren't some malicious conspiracy theory, they're how most people access and secure all their information.

fallat 5y ago

I don't get the hate for Metamask. You can connect hardware wallets to it and its actual UX is good.

timdaub 5y ago
We can't it be a browser-integrated feature? That we can store keys, have them sign messages and e.g. unlock the signature function through e.g. a hardware wallet or a master password?
- Tenoke 5y ago
  .. Because major browsers will need to integrate it and they haven't. You can build things yourself more easily than you can convince say chrome to build something (which is the whole point of extensions, really). What you seem to be asking is just metamask to be integrated directly into chrome, which is a nice ask but not done to the right people (ask google/firefox) and its lack does not turn web3 into a 'Stupid Idea'. There's a lot of extension functionality I'd like straight in the browser itself but it's not the extension's fault that browser devs haven't included it.
verdverm 5y ago
They were uploading significant details of failed transactions to Segment. If that ever happened to you, they have a connection of a wallet address to other personal details.
officialchicken 5y ago
Good UX isn't security, MM and Infuria are owned by the same person (very centralized), you can't change your secret phrase, sentry.js doesn't secure a react app very well at all... etc. etc. etc. I'm not a hater (actually I'm a user), but I am pointing out a wide variety of issues that should be publicly discussed.

officialchicken 5y ago

Wait, let me get this straight - your company has the non-sharded encryption key (not the user), it centralized by your service, and all of that is subject to google's whims. Yep, sounds like the heart of web3.

evv 5y ago
Metamask is distributed through Google as well, and it operates in Chrome. It would be easier to let me know what web3 technology is not subject to Google's whims!
- officialchicken 5y ago
  I dunno, say, Brave browser??? Just spitballing here.
- cyberge99 5y ago
  IPFS
Spivak 5y ago
If you want something to have broad appeal you have to hide the key management. Users will never keep track of keys or wallets and they will lose them regularly. Most services solve this by not having the key be the source of truth for anything (i.e. iMessage, WhatsApp, and SSH) so that you can rotate them on a whim. Other services solve this by just hosting the key when it's actually important (Bitlocker). This is just an example of the latter. Sites that support "Login with Google/FB/Email" aren't some malicious conspiracy theory, they're how most people access and secure all their information.