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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WTpC2-0003Zh-32
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:04:46 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.24])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WTpC1-0007sV-7a for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:04:46 +0000
Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59])
by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jLrA1n0061GhbT851LrAbz; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:51:10 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jLr91n00H4VnV2P3TLr9e8; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:51:10 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:51:09 -0400
Message-ID: <1533279.gyh3J7MHJl@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.3 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <AA48C372-6735-40E4-A8AF-264576F86BB1@bitsofproof.com>
References: <1878927.J1e3zZmtIP@crushinator>
<AA48C372-6735-40E4-A8AF-264576F86BB1@bitsofproof.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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 [76.96.62.24 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1WTpC1-0007sV-7a
Cc: 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 09:04:46 -0000
On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 9:44 am, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> I used Shamir's Secret Sharing to decompose a seed for a BIP32 master key, that is I think more future relevant than a single key.
> Therefore suggest to adapt the BIP for a length used there typically 16 or 32 bytes and have a magic code to indicate its use as key vs. seed.
Master keys of 32 bytes would work as-is, as ordinary private keys are also 32 bytes. Secrets of other lengths could be supported if the function that generates a[i] from a[i-1] (which is presently SHA-256) were replaced with a function having parameterized output length, such as scrypt.
Base58Check encodings of shares for secrets of lengths other than 32 bytes would have prefixes other than "SS", but that's not a huge concern. I suspect 32 bytes would be the most common secret length anyway, wouldn't you?
|
