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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WW4st-0008JR-Oi
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:14:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WW4ss-0003Tj-Sq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:14:19 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id pn19so2504177lab.20
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.243.35 with SMTP id wv3mr1424559lac.47.1396620852282;
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC7yFxQXn=c7CEC326yMx4bF7Cv7Gc62shS7xU0XvSp5sQSGZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<3837746.jqWvB0Uxrs@crushinator>
<CAC7yFxQXn=c7CEC326yMx4bF7Cv7Gc62shS7xU0XvSp5sQSGZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:14:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQd6_DAPnYtXUKN8sL=MfrySBaRZWHfPtoKUw=p2=9OYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Nikita Schmidt <nikita@megiontechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1WW4ss-0003Tj-Sq
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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:14:19 -0000
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Nikita Schmidt
<nikita@megiontechnologies.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. Although I would have chosen the field order (p) simply
> because that's how all arithmetic already works in bitcoin. One field
> for everybody. It's also very close to 2^256, although still smaller
> than your maximum prime. Now of course with different bit lengths we
> have to pick one consistency over others.
Operation mod the group order is how secret keys must be combined in
type-2 private derivation for BIP-32. It's also absolutely essential
if you want to build a secret sharing scheme in which the shares are
usable for threshold ECDSA.
I still repeat my concern that any private key secret sharing scheme
really ought to be compatible with threshold ECDSA, otherwise we're
just going to have another redundant specification.
|
