This is extremely easy to misuse by passing in a stringified transaction. Also, it's misleading, because with the string argument it will just do signMessage() which is not a function intended for signing transactions.
Another idea, maybe we should remove signMessage() altogether or replace it with a signFields()-compatible signing algorithm?
This is extremely easy to misuse by passing in a stringified transaction. Also, it's misleading, because with the string argument it will just do
signMessage()
which is not a function intended for signing transactions.Another idea, maybe we should remove
signMessage()
altogether or replace it with asignFields()
-compatible signing algorithm?