{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-04\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 4 April 2014, at 10:08 am, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Are you proposing to switch from prime fields to a binary field? Because if you're going to \"break up\" a secret into little pieces, you can't assume that every piece of the secret will be strictly less than some 8-bit prime modulus. And if you're going to do a base conversion, then you have to do arbitrary-precision integer math anyway, so I don't see that the small field really saves you any code.\n\u003e \n\u003e Yes, I'm proposing using the binary extension field of GF(2^8).  There\n\u003e are many secret sharing and data integrity applications available\n\u003e already operating over GF(2^8) so you can go compare implementation\n\u003e approaches without having to try them our yourself. Obviously anything\n\u003e efficiently encoded as bytes will efficiently encode over GF(2^8).\n\nHonestly, that sounds a lot more complicated than what I have now. I made my current implementation because I just wanted something simple that would let me divide a private key into shares for purposes of dissemination to my next of kin et al.\n\n\u003e \u003e Weren't you just clamoring for implementation *simplicity* in your previous paragraph? :)\n\u003e \n\u003e I do think there is a material difference in complexity that comes in\n\u003e layers rather than at a single point. It's much easier to implement a\n\u003e complex thing that has many individually testable parts then a single\n\u003e complex part. (Implementing arithmetic mod some huge P is quite a bit\n\u003e of work unless you're using some very high level language with\n\u003e integrated bignums— and are comfortable hoping that their bignums are\n\u003e sufficiently consistent with the spec).\n\nI already have a fairly polished implementation of my BIP, and it's not written in a \"very high-level language\"; it's C++, and the parts that do the big-integer arithmetic are basically C. I'm using the GMP library: very straightforward, very reliable, very fast.\n\nDo you have a use case in mind that would benefit from byte-wise operations rather than big-integer operations? I mean, I guess if you were trying to implement this BIP on a PIC microcontroller, it might be nice to process the secret in smaller bites. (No pun intended.) But I get this feeling that you're only pushing me away from the present incarnation of my proposal because you think it's too similar (but not quite similar enough) to a threshold ECDSA key scheme."}