A discussion among Bitcoin industry figures has raised questions about whether products commonly known as hardware wallets should instead be called signing devices.

JAN3 CEO Samson Mow proposed the change as a way to distinguish the device that authorizes transactions from the broader software used to manage a wallet.

Mow argued that the term could help beginners understand how the devices work and why some users add a passphrase. 

He later said a coordinated education campaign involving manufacturers, podcasters, and other Bitcoin commentators could help introduce the terminology.

Ledger responded that it had already adopted a similar naming system. 

The company said it began referring to its hardware as a signer and renamed its Ledger Live application Ledger Wallet following an announcement at its Op3n event.

The company also said requiring physical approval on a device could provide protection against some forms of digital impersonation. 

“Deepfakes can clone your face and your voice. They still can't press your button.”

Marek “Slush” Palatinus, a co-founder of Trezor, offered a different view based on the company’s experience with similar terminology.

Palatinus said Trezor changed its website in 2016 to describe its product as a signing device rather than a wallet. 

Although the device supported functions including SSH, GPG, U2F, and FIDO2, he said customers did not understand why they should purchase a signer.

His comments highlighted a potential challenge for the proposal: “signing device” may describe the hardware’s function more precisely, while “hardware wallet” is already familiar to consumers.

Palatinus also questioned whether separating the terms would make Bitcoin easier to understand for mainstream users, since a signer may still need to be connected to wallet software before users can view or manage funds.

SeedSigner is one example of a project that already uses the signing-device label. It describes its product as an air-gapped, stateless device that can generate keys and sign Bitcoin transactions through QR-code exchanges. 

Because it does not permanently store private keys, its design differs from hardware products that retain key material on the device.

Information shared by SeedSigner during the discussion also addressed passphrases and multisignature custody. 

Adding a BIP39 passphrase to a recovery seed derives a different set of keys, meaning both the seed and the exact passphrase are required to regain access. This can add protection but also creates an additional risk if either element is lost.

SeedSigner also suggested that users consider multisignature arrangements, which require a specified number of keys to authorize transactions. 

Such setups can reduce reliance on a single key, although they may require more planning and backup information than a single-signature wallet.

The exchange did not produce an industry-wide conclusion. 

Supporters of “signing device” view it as a clearer description of the hardware’s role, while those favoring “hardware wallet” point to its established use and greater recognition among customers.