Armory does exactly this: it defines the "Fragment ID" as the first few bytes of the hash of the root pubKey + M-parameter, converted to base58. Then it explains to the user "All fragments with the same fragment ID are compatible" (which only works if you use deterministic coefficients). Each fragment is then labeled with "[FragID]-#1", "[FragID]-#2", etc. It became quite useful for organizing the fragments and documenting how I was distributing them, especially if I had printed or saved the same fragment twice by accident.
On 03/29/2014 02:16 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > I also think that we can add usability features if the underlying > secret remains well protected. > I do not think there is any reason to assume that the knowledge of the > degree of the polynomial, would aid an attacker. > > Similarly a fingerprint of the secret if it is unrelated to the hash > used in the polinomyal should leak no useful information, > > The length of such fingerpring (say 4 bytes) and the degree (1 byte) > does not seem a big overhead for me. > > Remember that the biggest obstacle of Bitcoin is usability not security. > > Regards, > > Tamas Blummer > http://bitsofproof.com > > On 29.03.2014, at 18:52, Alan Reiner <etothe...@gmail.com > <mailto:etothe...@gmail.com>> 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. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
