- 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
Necessary Shares = M+1, not a problem
I would probably encode N-of-M in 1 byte as I don't see good use cases with
more than 17 shares. Anyway, I am fine with it as it is.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.namewrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:27 am, Jan
I am concerned about space, but more about usability :-)
I'll definitely use both M and the checksum.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.namewrote:
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:39 am, Jan Møller wrote:
Necessary Shares = M+1, not a problem
I would
:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Jan Møller jan.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a very useful BIP, and I am very much looking forward to
implementing it in Mycelium, in particular for bip32 wallets.
I haven't seen commentary from you on the Kogelman draft, it would be
helpful there: https
A Java implementation of what is called BIPSS in lack of an official number
can be found here:
https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet/blob/master/public/bitlib/src/main/java/com/mrd/bitlib/crypto/BipSs.java
(passing all test vectors)
Which is based on a GF2^8 implementation here:
of whatever pseudo-law is involved?
I think it's a bit early to think about these things right now. Michael
Grønager and Jan Møller have been Bitcoin hackers for a long time. I'd be
interested to know their thoughts on all
6 matches
Mail list logo
