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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WcWmg-00070Y-GU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:14:34 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.32])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WcWlM-0002X3-0F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:14:34 +0000
Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28])
by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id sxD21n0010cZkys53xD2Nj; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:13:02 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id sxD11n00S4VnV2P3WxD2Al; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:13:02 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: jan.moller@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:13:01 -0400
Message-ID: <9644584.QTKx69qfup@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABh=4qPX=w4815O1bRSu+y-KviKS=Brai-umgmheZM5Ar6xv1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<2336265.urqHVhRi8n@crushinator>
<CABh=4qPX=w4815O1bRSu+y-KviKS=Brai-umgmheZM5Ar6xv1w@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: 1WcWlM-0002X3-0F
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 09:14:34 -0000
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:39 am, Jan M=F8ller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.nam=
e>wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:27 am, Jan M=F8ller wrote:
> > > > > - Please allow M=3D1. From a usability point of view it make=
s 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 i=
s
> > > > functionally equivalent to dispensing with the secret sharing s=
cheme
> > > > entirely.
> > > >
> > > I agree that it may look silly to have just one-of-one share from=
a
> > > technical point of view, but from an end-user point of view there=
could be
> > > reasons for just having one piece of paper to manage. If M can be=
1 then
> > > the software/hardware doesn't have to support multiple formats,
> > > import/export paths + UI (one for SIPA keys in one share, one fo=
r HD seeds
> > > in one share, one for SIPA keys + HD seeds in multiple shares).
> > >
> > > Less complexity & more freedom of choice.
> >
> > Alright. It's a fair argument. Do you agree with encoding M using a=
bias
> > of -1 so that M up to and including 256 can be encoded in one byte?=
>=20
> Necessary Shares =3D M+1, not a problem
>=20
> I would probably encode N-of-M in 1 byte as I don't see good use case=
s with
> more than 17 shares. Anyway, I am fine with it as it is.
Encoding bias of M changed to -1, and test vectors updated:
https://github.com/whitslack/btctool/blob/bip/bip-xxxx.mediawiki
|
