📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29
📝 Original message: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.
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 15:16:40
in reply to nevent1q…5u6v
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:16:40Event JSON
{
"id": "a553b8169615a73c743e476b61ddce3c096f8225fb52e7902567d59cfd3f1caa",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686151000,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd470d06d90a3107c21da4b48b344ebdd3b4ab813362bb85b0e7a02311012700",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"67f957ba0c4ded5fcc74304aedb7a796b51c4ab023fc529d49d20c8f96907c06",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-03-29\n📝 Original message:On 03/29/2014 01:19 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e 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.\n\nI do not believe this is a good tradeoff. It's basically obfuscation of\nsomething that is already considered secure at the expense of\nusability. It's much more important to me that the user understands\nwhat is in their hands (or their family members after they get hit by a\nbus), than to obfuscate the parameters of the secret sharing to provide\na tiny disadvantage to an adversary who gets ahold of one. \n\nThe fact that it fails silently is really all downside, not a benefit. \nIf I have enough fragments, I can reconstruct the seed and see that it\nproduces addresses with money. If not, I know I need more fragments. \nI'm much more concerned about my family having all the info they need to\nrecover the money, than an attacker knowing that he needs two more\nfragments instead of which are well-secured anyway.",
"sig": "a59bb86ddec84589080806091009dae4b83046de87241a951cb341a79f17db539b1db9bb82748d3e291c4f1225f81332aca90fe3d39277cb2038eabd34cf3272"
}