<p>The wallet name/passphrase is the key to the wallet file. The wallet file contains the secret key. The secret key is the key to the funds.</p>

<p>If you lose the wallet file, you can still access your funds with the secret key.</p>

<p>If you lose the secret key, it's there in the wallet file.</p>

<p>If you lose both the wallet file and the secret key, then you've lost access to your funds.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T22:23:23.467Z
2013-04-25T22:23:23.467Z
Manish
<blockquote>
  <p>Is the wallet name/passphrase just for convenience (easy to remember)?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Because anyone trying to steal your funds would first have to get hold of your wallet file before he could use the passphrase, it doesn't have to be quite as secure as the secret.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why can't the wallet name/passphrase be changed?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Because then you'd have two passphrases you'd have to keep secure forever to protect your account. The decrypted wallet yields the secret and the secret owns the account. There's generally no way to be sure you've destroyed every copy of your wallet.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why not generate the secret key from the wallet name/passphrase so that the user has only one secret to keep safe?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That would defeat the point of the passphrase because it would no longer be able to be any less secure than the secret. Anyone could try common name / passphrase combinations at a very high rate to see if any of them matched existing accounts.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T21:31:10.880Z
If I know your wallet name/passphrase I can obtain your secret key by logging in to the Ripple client. Is it not? So it has to be as secure as the secret key. Or am I missing something?
Manish
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T21:38:00.187Z
@Manish: If you *know* my wallet name/passphrase yes. But if you had it on a list of a hundred billion possible name/passphrases, no. If you had the secret on a list of a hundred billion possible secrets, my account would be toast.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T22:05:47.407Z
So you're saying that it would be easier to brute-force the secret key if it were generated from the wallet name/passphrase? Because then you could do something like a dictionary attack? And that's why it's better to keep them separate?
Manish
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T22:14:17.997Z
Yes, that's it. You can't brute force the wallet unless you *have* the wallet. There's nothing to stop you from trying to brute force the secret -- so it must be *very* secure. 38 bits is probably just barely enough for the passphrase (assuming someone doesn't have a copy of your wallet). 70 bits is probably just barely enough for the secret.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T22:24:05.143Z
I've tried to summarize in a separate answer; please correct if wrong.
Manish
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T22:25:17.130Z
Is it possible for a different Ripple client to implement another kind of wallet (like a Bitcoin wallet with multiple secret keys), or is that something incompatible with the way Ripple works?
Manish
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T23:57:05.477Z
That's definitely possible.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-25T21:23:01.527Z
2013-04-25T21:23:01.527Z
David Schwartz
<p>The Ripple client has both a wallet name/passphrase and a secret key, and to the newbie it's not clear why there are two secrets. The client advises the user to write down the secret key and keep it safe so the funds can be recovered if the wallet is lost. If the funds can be recovered using just the secret key, then why does it have a wallet name/passphrase as well?</p>

<p>Is the wallet name/passphrase just for convenience (easy to remember)?</p>

<p>Why can't the wallet name/passphrase be changed?</p>

<p>Why not generate the secret key from the wallet name/passphrase so that the user has only one secret to keep safe?</p>

<ripple><ripple-client>
What is the relationship between the Ripple secret key and the wallet name/passphrase?
Manish
# What is the relationship between the Ripple secret key and the wallet name/passphrase?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-25)

The Ripple client has both a wallet name/passphrase and a secret key, and to the newbie it's not clear why there are two secrets. The client advises the user to write down the secret key and keep it safe so the funds can be recovered if the wallet is lost. If the funds can be recovered using just the secret key, then why does it have a wallet name/passphrase as well?

Is the wallet name/passphrase just for convenience (easy to remember)?

Why can't the wallet name/passphrase be changed?

Why not generate the secret key from the wallet name/passphrase so that the user has only one secret to keep safe?

**Tags:** ripple, ripple-client


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-04-25. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

> Is the wallet name/passphrase just for convenience (easy to remember)?

Yes. Because anyone trying to steal your funds would first have to get hold of your wallet file before he could use the passphrase, it doesn't have to be quite as secure as the secret.

> Why can't the wallet name/passphrase be changed?

Because then you'd have two passphrases you'd have to keep secure forever to protect your account. The decrypted wallet yields the secret and the secret owns the account. There's generally no way to be sure you've destroyed every copy of your wallet.

> Why not generate the secret key from the wallet name/passphrase so that the user has only one secret to keep safe?

That would defeat the point of the passphrase because it would no longer be able to be any less secure than the secret. Anyone could try common name / passphrase combinations at a very high rate to see if any of them matched existing accounts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If I know your wallet name/passphrase I can obtain your secret key by logging in to the Ripple client. Is it not? So it has to be as secure as the secret key. Or am I missing something?  
> **username_1**: @username_0: If you *know* my wallet name/passphrase yes. But if you had it on a list of a hundred billion possible name/passphrases, no. If you had the secret on a list of a hundred billion possible secrets, my account would be toast.  
> **username_0**: So you're saying that it would be easier to brute-force the secret key if it were generated from the wallet name/passphrase? Because then you could do something like a dictionary attack? And that's why it's better to keep them separate?  
> **username_1**: Yes, that's it. You can't brute force the wallet unless you *have* the wallet. There's nothing to stop you from trying to brute force the secret -- so it must be *very* secure. 38 bits is probably just barely enough for the passphrase (assuming someone doesn't have a copy of your wallet). 70 bits is probably just barely enough for the secret.  
> **username_0**: I've tried to summarize in a separate answer; please correct if wrong.  
> **username_0**: Is it possible for a different Ripple client to implement another kind of wallet (like a Bitcoin wallet with multiple secret keys), or is that something incompatible with the way Ripple works?  
> **username_1**: That's definitely possible.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2013-04-25. Score: 1

The wallet name/passphrase is the key to the wallet file. The wallet file contains the secret key. The secret key is the key to the funds.

If you lose the wallet file, you can still access your funds with the secret key.

If you lose the secret key, it's there in the wallet file.

If you lose both the wallet file and the secret key, then you've lost access to your funds.


---

