MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTyndBG=airHoAcW4W2WgFZ61THXP4JGuUQCSWV99tCtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABh=4qNaJht-MnnjEguZ=UOuXN3uQ-s4-dkDUVErbHj6W44J_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator> <2025496.b5Y3n7qx8B@crushinator>
	<1582E990-4E14-4EF7-9C9C-AA505B815104@bitsofproof.com>
	<53568B87.8040009@monetize.io>
	<11528A13-5D66-4D2B-BEE0-1C26F9987BC8@bitsofproof.com>
	<CABh=4qPsR1YbhJDeAPjr37Zjqawo9ZFAH43scFnEg7p9a7EkeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F292CC2F-BAA7-45ED-801E-1475D94632AF@bitsofproof.com>
	<CAAS2fgR5ciUeFonOXBD1d9b_inOuxQKJ-LaoGmoyjoeQ_KxQxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<621AAD7D-FDC0-4C3C-B810-8C1F0B088586@bitsofproof.com>
	<CAAS2fgTyndBG=airHoAcW4W2WgFZ61THXP4JGuUQCSWV99tCtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nikita Schmidt <nikita@megiontechnologies.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:36:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAC7yFxQR6oVdASacCefPiuWocvrDHTTnVU4xyVdZTwvMr4ZPNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
 Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
Precedence: list

A fork of Matt's proposal converted to GF(2^8) is here:
https://github.com/cetuscetus/btctool/blob/bip/bip-xxxx.mediawiki

Other changes include:
- only six application/version bytes are allocated, which is the
minimum to ensure that the encoded form starts with S in all cases;
- encoded prefixes are SK/SL for a shared private key
(mainnet/testnet) and SS/ST for a shared BIP32 seed;
- the only hash function in use is SHA-256, which is the all-purpose
hash function in the Bitcoin protocol;
- double SHA is used for similarity with Bitcoin, although Jan and I
believe single SHA is enough in this application;
- bias-less encoding of M and x, because there can't be more than 255
shares over GF(2^8).


On 23 April 2014 09:16, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
>> So you agree, that SSS should not contain specific flag for testnet?
>>
>> Or for that matter not even BIP32 needs them since it is not an address to
>> send to.
>
> I think the convention we have so far is that addresses and address
> relate thing we share normally contain an opaque 'version' identifier
> which we use to identify the purpose for the data (E.g. network
> meaning, etc.) and I think its a generally reasonable custom.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development