From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:00:15 -0400
Message-ID: <2135731.4HGHfZWzo5@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.3 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <53370854.5050303@gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0ckScTWG4YxNCscxvtdsmcUkxtR2Gi-rdBs2HCkirPz5rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<15872432.k8h0hUxqlf@crushinator> <53370854.5050303@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
	Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
Precedence: list

On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 1:52 pm, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:19 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I intentionally omitted the parameter M (minimum subset size) from the shares because including it would give an adversary a vital piece of information. Likewise, including any kind of information that would allow a determination of whether the secret has been correctly reconstituted would give an adversary too much information. Failing silently when given incorrect shares or an insufficient number of shares is intentional.
> 
> I do not believe this is a good tradeoff.  It's basically obfuscation of
> something that is already considered secure at the expense of
> usability.  It's much more important to me that the user understands
> what is in their hands (or their family members after they get hit by a
> bus), than to obfuscate the parameters of the secret sharing to provide
> a tiny disadvantage to an adversary who gets ahold of one. 
> 
> The fact that it fails silently is really all downside, not a benefit. 
> If I have enough fragments, I can reconstruct the seed and see that it
> produces addresses with money.  If not, I know I need more fragments. 
> I'm much more concerned about my family having all the info they need to
> recover the money, than an attacker knowing that he needs two more
> fragments instead of which are well-secured anyway.

For what it's worth, ssss also omits from the shares any information about the threshold. It will happily return a garbage secret if too few shares are combined. (And actually, it will happily return a garbage secret if too *many* shares are combined, too. My implementation does not have that problem.)