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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jan.moller@gmail.com>) id 1WcW33-00031A-Mo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:27:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.48; envelope-from=jan.moller@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com ([209.85.192.48])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WcW31-0000rq-VA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:27:25 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q108so1298336qgd.7
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.17.69 with SMTP id r5mr46340878qca.7.1398155238457; Tue,
22 Apr 2014 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.24.201 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC7yFxR7XWtFSMeHgbMZOMKbr+kK_7Ezb7zBUQP08rfC0am9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABh=4qNaJht-MnnjEguZ=UOuXN3uQ-s4-dkDUVErbHj6W44J_g@mail.gmail.com>
<1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:27:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CABh=4qOQhxEte3yQfCMNOZdedExtpqARQRDSfxQMqk-2KwJamw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jan_M=C3=B8ller?= <jan.moller@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133c93854642604f79d62b3
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 [209.85.192.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-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
(jan.moller[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1WcW31-0000rq-VA
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
Reply-To: jan.moller@gmail.com
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 08:27:25 -0000
--001a1133c93854642604f79d62b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> > - Please allow M=1. From a usability point of view it makes 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 is
> functionally equivalent to dispensing with the secret sharing scheme
> 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 for HD seeds
in one share, one for SIPA keys + HD seeds in multiple shares).
Less complexity & more freedom of choice.
--001a1133c93854642604f79d62b3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><br>
> =C2=A0- Please allow M=3D1. From a usability point of view it makes se=
nse to allow<br>
> the user to select 1 share if that is what he wants.<br>
<br>
</div>How does that make sense? Decomposing a key/seed into 1 share is func=
tionally equivalent to dispensing with the secret sharing scheme entirely.<=
br>
<div class=3D""><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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 doe=
sn't have to support multiple formats, import/export paths + UI =C2=A0(=
one for SIPA keys in one share, one for HD seeds in one share, one for SIPA=
keys + HD seeds in multiple shares).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Less complexity & more freedom of choice.</div><div=
><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1133c93854642604f79d62b3--
|
