{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-01-08\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The construction also\n\u003e \u003e will silently result in the user getting a different private key if\n\u003e \u003e they enter the wrong passphrase-- which could lead to funds loss.\n\u003e \n\u003e Again, this is by design and it is main point why plausible deniability\n\u003e is achieved both in BIP39 and SLIP39. If we used a different\n\u003e construction we'd loose plausible deniability.\n\nCan you explain _exactly_ what scenario the \"plausible deniability\" feature\nrefers to?\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180108/a83273e6/attachment.sig\u003e"}