Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.160.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.176; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f176.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1701822.mCYDUGhe8d@crushinator>
References: <CACsn0ckScTWG4YxNCscxvtdsmcUkxtR2Gi-rdBs2HCkirPz5rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2135731.4HGHfZWzo5@crushinator> <53370C11.7040109@gmail.com>
	<1701822.mCYDUGhe8d@crushinator>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 22:38:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Mvxa0BmTiZrB9PSkGNJ_XDrv3+eVu1NqyRKhKMGyr+OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> Okay, you've convinced me. However, it looks like the consensus here is that my BIP is unneeded, so I'm not sure it would be worth the effort for me to improve it with your suggestions.

Discussion of whether you should or should not use SSS is separate
from whether you should or should not write a BIP.

If people are using SSS in the field, it is better to write a BIP than
not.  Informational BIPs describing existing practice can be useful.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/