Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

chore: fix typos #3740

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

chore: fix typos #3740

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion provider-bridge/README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
- eg webextension-polyfill is 37KB which is comparable to the size spa web framewoks.
> It's absolutely fine for now bc this way we get to use the same apis everywhere but good thing to have this consideration in the back of our minds
- implement injection restrictions (only valid html files, blacklists?)
- add message validaition mechanism to postMessage/addEventListener used in inpage<>content comm (signing, enveloping, asymmetric encryption etc. Can be as simple as a "parity bit")
- add message validation mechanism to postMessage/addEventListener used in inpage<>content comm (signing, enveloping, asymmetric encryption etc. Can be as simple as a "parity bit")

## window.ethereum debug

Expand Down
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions rfb/rfb-5-control-compatile-addresses.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ The Taho wallet was built with the intent of supporting not only multiple
networks, but multiple networks that might be of different types (e.g.,
non-EVM). This was a core design strategy, but it's often the case that
ongoing development can deprioritize certain thinking that maintains the
underlying flexibility needed to rerpesent these differences.
underlying flexibility needed to represent these differences.

Currently, the code base assumes that a given address is always controlled by
the same underlying key, keyring, or external device, even if it is on a
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -118,9 +118,9 @@ another network:
| Private key import | Polygon | Yes | Private key |
| Private key import | RSK | Yes | Private key |
| Private key import | BTC | No | Address format |
| Ledger walllet | Polygon | Yes | Tx compatible |
| Ledger walllet | RSK | Yes | Tx compatible |
| Ledger walllet | BTC | No | Address format |
| Ledger wallet | Polygon | Yes | Tx compatible |
| Ledger wallet | RSK | Yes | Tx compatible |
| Ledger wallet | BTC | No | Address format |
| WalletConnect Safe[^5] | Polygon | No | Tx incompatible |
| WalletConnect Safe | RSK | No | Tx incompatible |
| WalletConnect Safe | BTC | No | Address format |
Expand Down