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
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <watsonbladd@gmail.com>) id 1WTuFH-0003tY-Gz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:28:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.179; envelope-from=watsonbladd@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yk0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-yk0-f179.google.com ([209.85.160.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WTuFG-00081E-Ly
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:28:27 +0000
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 9so1772880ykp.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.139.70 with SMTP id b46mr21093079yhj.63.1396103301001;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: watsonbladd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.170.63.197 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1894130.91FUH3Vu6n@crushinator>
References: <1878927.J1e3zZmtIP@crushinator>
<CAJHLa0N0YCHfBeDq+QLqK3ZVWD-rAx85MXvX4OBqSoQqgCXm2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0WAMGV_ki3+9eFPaLQQVS7BJQ1c1c7KDuQatTeun-VwA@mail.gmail.com>
<1894130.91FUH3Vu6n@crushinator>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:28:20 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4nlfk1XxG7NpbPdareU3OFxm1kw
Message-ID: <CACsn0cn8cFn79dMi7M3uALE5KDFJOzxK4PdFyRR8j56FygnQZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(watsonbladd[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: 1WTuFG-00081E-Ly
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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 14:28:27 -0000
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wro=
te:
> On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 2:36 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> Right - the explanation in the BIP about the board of directors is IMO =
a
>> little misleading. The problem is with splitting a private key is that a=
t
>> some point, *someone* has to get the full private key back and they can
>> then just remember the private key to undo the system. CHECKMULTISIG avo=
ids
>> this.
>
> The implication is that every director would want to retain the board's p=
rivate key for himself but also would want to prevent every other director =
from successfully retaining the private key for himself, leading to a perpe=
tual stalemate in which no director ever gets to retain the private key.
This is not the case: one can use MPC techniques to compute a
signature from shares without reconstructing the private key. There is
a paper on this for bitcoin, but I don't know where it is.
>
>> I can imagine that there may be occasional uses for splitting a wallet s=
eed
>> like this, like for higher security cold wallets, but I suspect an ongoi=
ng
>> shared account like a corporate account is still best off using
>> CHECKMULTISIG or the n-of-m ECDSA threshold scheme proposed by Ali et al=
.
>
> Multisig does not allow for the topology I described. Say the board has s=
even directors, meaning the majority threshold is four. This means the orga=
nization needs the consent of six individuals in order to sign a transactio=
n: the president, the CFO, and any four of the board members. A 6-of-9 mult=
isig would not accomplish the same policy, as then any six board members co=
uld successfully sign a transaction without the consent of the president or=
CFO. Of course the multi-signature scheme could be expanded to allow for h=
ierarchical threshold topologies, or Shamir's Secret Sharing can be used to=
distribute keys at the second level (and further, if desired).
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--=20
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
|
