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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WTpbl-0005us-RI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:31:21 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WTpbk-0007mE-S3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:31:21 +0000
Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52])
by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jMVi1n00117dt5G55MXDsq; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:31:13 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jMXC1n00F4VnV2P3ZMXDm8; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:31:13 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Chris Beams <chris@beams.io>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 05:31:12 -0400
Message-ID: <2161958.W1q2MCGbqG@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.3 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <83BBF97F-290E-4CF9-B062-92445ED35F27@beams.io>
References: <1878927.J1e3zZmtIP@crushinator>
<83BBF97F-290E-4CF9-B062-92445ED35F27@beams.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 [76.96.62.48 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: 1WTpbk-0007mE-S3
Cc: 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: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:31:22 -0000
On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 10:08 am, Chris Beams wrote:
> Matt, could you expand on use cases for which you see Shamir's Secret Sharing Scheme as the best tool for the job? In particular, when do you see that it would be superior to simply going with multisig in the first place? Perhaps you see these as complimentary approaches, toward defense-in-depth? In any case, the Motivation and Rationale sections of the BIP in its current form are silent on these questions.
Okay, yes, I will address these questions.
|
