4

If I import the same private key in ETH and RSK networks, the account is the same but the capitalization is different. Why is this? Is this OK?

bguiz
  • 27,371
  • 47
  • 154
  • 243
Alejandro Cavallero
  • 203
  • 1
  • 5

3 Answers3

6

Capitalization is used as a checksum, and the following standards are involved

Some wallet software allow you to configure the chain ID/ network ID, and others do not

  • In wallets that leave out the chain ID, the capitalization based checksum will be the same in RSK as that of Ethereum. Example: MetaMask
  • In wallets that include the chain ID, the capitalization based checksum will be different in RSK compared to Ethereum. Example: Nifty Wallet.

In both cases, a workaround is possible, and specified in EIP-155: Use all lower case to skip checksum checks

bguiz
  • 27,371
  • 47
  • 154
  • 243
Julian M. Rodriguez
  • 111
  • 2
4

This question maybe is not ONLY about checksum, because the same seed phrase for both Ethereum and RSK have different derivation paths by default.

  • RSK Mainnet derivation path: m/44’/137’/0’/0 RSK
  • Testnet derivation path: m/44’/37310’/0’/0
  • Ethereum derivation path: m/44'/60'/0'/0'/0 (for all networks: Mainnet, Ropsten, Rinkeby, Goerli, etc)

https://developers.rsk.co/rsk/architecture/account-based/

Solange Gueiros
  • 313
  • 1
  • 10
  • Yes, that is right, the derivation path **does not** affect the checksum calculations. It is only the `chainId` plus whether EIP-1191 or EIP-155 is used that **does** affect the checksum calculations. – bguiz Jan 13 '21 at 03:20
0

Ethereum encodes address checksum in the capitalisation of hexadecimal letters of the address.

It might be that whatever RSK tool you are using is not supporting this convention. In this case, you can convert non-checksummed address to checksummed, capitalised format, yourself.

Mikko Ohtamaa
  • 82,057
  • 50
  • 264
  • 435