Transaction signing is the core security boundary of self-custody. A signature authorizes exactly what the chain executes. The safest posture is to read intent, minimize approvals, and avoid blind signing.
Transaction signing is the act of authorizing a blockchain action with a private key. A wallet produces a cryptographic signature that proves “the owner of this address approves this exact action,” and networks or smart contracts verify it before they accept the change.
Signing is the choke point of self-custody. If a user signs the wrong thing, the chain still does what was authorized, even if it was a scam. That is why many real losses come from signatures and approvals, not from a mysterious protocol exploit.
A wallet controls an address using a private key and a derived public address. The private key stays secret. The public address is safe to share. Public and private keys are the foundation of wallet control.
When a wallet signs, it signs a hashed representation of the action. Verifiers can check the signature against the public address without learning the private key. That is the security promise.
People often mix up “signing a transaction” and “signing a message.” They can look similar in a wallet pop-up, but they have different consequences.
A signed transaction changes onchain state. Examples include sending ETH, swapping on a DEX, approving a token spender, minting an NFT, or bridging funds. It costs gas (or a fee) because it gets included in a block.
A signed message is typically offchain. It is used to prove identity, log in, or consent to terms. It usually does not cost gas.
The catch is that message signing can still be dangerous if the user cannot read what is being signed, or if the signed data is later used as an authorization input for something powerful. Wallets commonly implement multiple signing methods, including typed structured signing and legacy methods that increase phishing risk.
Typed structured signing exists because “sign this blob of bytes” is not human-friendly. EIP-712 defines a standard for hashing and signing structured data so wallets can display meaningful fields like spender, amount, deadline, and a domain separator that binds the signature to context.
When a dapp uses typed data properly, a wallet can show intent. When it does not, users drift toward blind signing.
Replay attacks happen when a valid signed transaction for one chain can be replayed on another chain. EIP-155 introduced chain ID into the signing scheme to block that class of replay for Ethereum-style transactions.
For users, the takeaway is simple: chain context matters. A signature is not only “I approve,” it is “I approve on this chain and for this domain.”
Approvals are a transaction that grants a spender permission to move tokens from a wallet. Dapps use approvals because a smart contract cannot pull ERC-20 tokens from a wallet without permission.
The risk comes from two patterns:
A security-first workflow is to minimize approvals, limit them to exact amounts when possible, and review old approvals periodically. Stale approvals can be checked and revoked using an approvals tool like Revoke.cash.
Some tokens support “permit” signatures, where approval happens via an offchain signature and is then submitted onchain alongside an action. This reduces friction and can reduce the need for a separate approval transaction, but it creates a new signing surface.
Permit signatures are commonly linked to EIP-2612 and EIP-712 typed data flows. ERC20Permit is a common implementation pattern and is covered in the OpenZeppelin ERC20 Permit guide.
The operational takeaway: “gasless” does not mean “riskless.” It means the user signs once and someone else pays the gas to submit it.
Account abstraction changes what gets signed. Many smart accounts sign a UserOperation that is bundled and executed via an EntryPoint contract. The ERC-4337 documentation covers this architecture and why it enables batching, sponsored fees, and more flexible validation logic.
UX can improve, but complexity increases. The safety rule stays the same: understand the exact action being authorized, not the marketing label on the button.
Blind signing means authorizing something without seeing full transaction data in a human-readable way. Clear signing is the opposite: the wallet presents readable intent so the user can verify recipient, amounts, and contract interactions before approval.
Clear signing reduces risk, but it depends on ecosystem support. If a dapp cannot provide interpretable data, wallets may still fall back to unreadable prompts.
The post Transaction Signing Explained: What Wallet Signatures Do And How To Avoid Signing Traps appeared first on Crypto Adventure.
