1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WcVo5-0002Gv-Cf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:11:57 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.32])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WcVo3-0002KN-If for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:11:57 +0000
Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36])
by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id swAa1n0020mv7h053wBqbT; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:11:50 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id swBo1n00S4VnV2P3XwBpn7; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:11:49 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: jan.moller@gmail.com,
bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 04:11:48 -0400
Message-ID: <1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABh=4qNaJht-MnnjEguZ=UOuXN3uQ-s4-dkDUVErbHj6W44J_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC7yFxR7XWtFSMeHgbMZOMKbr+kK_7Ezb7zBUQP08rfC0am9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABh=4qNaJht-MnnjEguZ=UOuXN3uQ-s4-dkDUVErbHj6W44J_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [76.96.62.32 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WcVo3-0002KN-If
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:11:57 -0000
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:06 am, Jan M=F8ller wrote:
> This is a very useful BIP, and I am very much looking forward to
> implementing it in Mycelium, in particular for bip32 wallets.
> To me this is not about whether to use SSS instead of multisig
> transactions. In the end you want to protect a secret (be it a HD mas=
ter
> seed or a private key) in such a way that you can recover it in case =
of
> partial theft/loss. Whether I'll use the master seed to generate keys=
that
> are going to be used for multisig transactions is another discussion =
IMO.
>=20
> A few suggestions:
> - I think it is very useful to define different prefixes for testnet=
> keys/seeds. As a developer I use the testnet every day, and many of o=
ur
> users use it for trying out new functionality. Mixing up keys meant f=
or
> testnet and mainnet is bad.
A fair point. I'll add some prefixes for testnet.
> - Please allow M=3D1. From a usability point of view it makes sense =
to allow
> the user to select 1 share if that is what he wants.
How does that make sense? Decomposing a key/seed into 1 share is functi=
onally equivalent to dispensing with the secret sharing scheme entirely=
.
> I have no strong opinions of whether to use GF(2^8) over Shamir's Sec=
ret
> Sharing, but the simplicity of GF(2^8) is appealing.
I'll welcome forks of my draft BIP. I don't really have the inclination=
to research GF(2^8) secret sharing schemes and write an implementation=
at the present time, but if someone wants to take my BIP in that direc=
tion, then okay.
|
