Mixing
Get rid of Metamask sign confirmation dialog
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using web3 for users to sign some random string from web application. I give user string, he/she signs it after Metamask dialog's "Sign" button. but there is a problem when i want user to sign about 1000 random strings separately. there are unhandled amount of confirmation dialogs. what is the solution?
metamask dapps signature
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using web3 for users to sign some random string from web application. I give user string, he/she signs it after Metamask dialog's "Sign" button. but there is a problem when i want user to sign about 1000 random strings separately. there are unhandled amount of confirmation dialogs. what is the solution?
metamask dapps signature
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using web3 for users to sign some random string from web application. I give user string, he/she signs it after Metamask dialog's "Sign" button. but there is a problem when i want user to sign about 1000 random strings separately. there are unhandled amount of confirmation dialogs. what is the solution?
metamask dapps signature
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am using web3 for users to sign some random string from web application. I give user string, he/she signs it after Metamask dialog's "Sign" button. but there is a problem when i want user to sign about 1000 random strings separately. there are unhandled amount of confirmation dialogs. what is the solution?
metamask dapps signature
metamask dapps signature
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
asked 3 hours ago
O. Shekriladze
203
203
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Signing a message is a privileged action, and MetaMask is correct to prompt the user every time they perform this action.
A signed message can be anything from a valid transaction to a "undeniable" message from the user. Any user signing messages which are being generated by a program should be fully aware of what exactly they are signing.
In your situation, it may make sense to not use MetaMask, but to use the private key of the Ethereum account you want to sign messages with to programmatically create these signed messages without any user input.
However, this would require that your users trust your application with their private key, and that would probably not be the best idea either... It might be best then to concatenate the messages in question and have the user sign a single longer message if possible.
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The only way to deal with this situation is to use unlockAccount first, so that you unlock the account and you already have a signing mechanism and no need to use metamask sign. Just unlock it first and then deal with it.
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why do you need to sign 1000 string separately?
One possibility is to build a merkle tree from the strings and only sign the merkle root hash.
To validate an string you send the signature, the string and the merkle tree proof.
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Signing a message is a privileged action, and MetaMask is correct to prompt the user every time they perform this action.
A signed message can be anything from a valid transaction to a "undeniable" message from the user. Any user signing messages which are being generated by a program should be fully aware of what exactly they are signing.
In your situation, it may make sense to not use MetaMask, but to use the private key of the Ethereum account you want to sign messages with to programmatically create these signed messages without any user input.
However, this would require that your users trust your application with their private key, and that would probably not be the best idea either... It might be best then to concatenate the messages in question and have the user sign a single longer message if possible.
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Signing a message is a privileged action, and MetaMask is correct to prompt the user every time they perform this action.
A signed message can be anything from a valid transaction to a "undeniable" message from the user. Any user signing messages which are being generated by a program should be fully aware of what exactly they are signing.
In your situation, it may make sense to not use MetaMask, but to use the private key of the Ethereum account you want to sign messages with to programmatically create these signed messages without any user input.
However, this would require that your users trust your application with their private key, and that would probably not be the best idea either... It might be best then to concatenate the messages in question and have the user sign a single longer message if possible.
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Signing a message is a privileged action, and MetaMask is correct to prompt the user every time they perform this action.
A signed message can be anything from a valid transaction to a "undeniable" message from the user. Any user signing messages which are being generated by a program should be fully aware of what exactly they are signing.
In your situation, it may make sense to not use MetaMask, but to use the private key of the Ethereum account you want to sign messages with to programmatically create these signed messages without any user input.
However, this would require that your users trust your application with their private key, and that would probably not be the best idea either... It might be best then to concatenate the messages in question and have the user sign a single longer message if possible.
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
Signing a message is a privileged action, and MetaMask is correct to prompt the user every time they perform this action.
A signed message can be anything from a valid transaction to a "undeniable" message from the user. Any user signing messages which are being generated by a program should be fully aware of what exactly they are signing.
In your situation, it may make sense to not use MetaMask, but to use the private key of the Ethereum account you want to sign messages with to programmatically create these signed messages without any user input.
However, this would require that your users trust your application with their private key, and that would probably not be the best idea either... It might be best then to concatenate the messages in question and have the user sign a single longer message if possible.
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
answered 3 hours ago
Shawn Tabrizi
2,5351320
2,5351320
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
so unlocking account isn't solution?
– O. Shekriladze
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The only way to deal with this situation is to use unlockAccount first, so that you unlock the account and you already have a signing mechanism and no need to use metamask sign. Just unlock it first and then deal with it.
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The only way to deal with this situation is to use unlockAccount first, so that you unlock the account and you already have a signing mechanism and no need to use metamask sign. Just unlock it first and then deal with it.
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The only way to deal with this situation is to use unlockAccount first, so that you unlock the account and you already have a signing mechanism and no need to use metamask sign. Just unlock it first and then deal with it.
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
The only way to deal with this situation is to use unlockAccount first, so that you unlock the account and you already have a signing mechanism and no need to use metamask sign. Just unlock it first and then deal with it.
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
answered 3 hours ago
Giorgi Lagidze
917
917
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why do you need to sign 1000 string separately?
One possibility is to build a merkle tree from the strings and only sign the merkle root hash.
To validate an string you send the signature, the string and the merkle tree proof.
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Why do you need to sign 1000 string separately?
One possibility is to build a merkle tree from the strings and only sign the merkle root hash.
To validate an string you send the signature, the string and the merkle tree proof.
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Why do you need to sign 1000 string separately?
One possibility is to build a merkle tree from the strings and only sign the merkle root hash.
To validate an string you send the signature, the string and the merkle tree proof.
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
Why do you need to sign 1000 string separately?
One possibility is to build a merkle tree from the strings and only sign the merkle root hash.
To validate an string you send the signature, the string and the merkle tree proof.
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
answered 10 mins ago
Ismael
12.6k42345
12.6k42345
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
O. Shekriladze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fethereum.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f58834%2fget-rid-of-metamask-sign-confirmation-dialog%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
