rich1.0npub1aeetueshkcgcx4x7uze7qteaq85d9d4c8kzrwxqmxq2rjnl5drmssu7ctdhttps://nostr.ae/npub1aeetueshkcgcx4x7uze7qteaq85d9d4c8kzrwxqmxq2rjnl5drmssu7ctdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-07 📝 Original message:> > I'd be fine with changing the key fingerprint algorithm to something else. Do you like CRC16? > I like CRC16. Do you intend to use it in conjunction with a cryptographic hash? Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway. The operations required for SSS are nearly the same as for base-58 and can probably be done by the same subset of the chosen bignum library. So in fact using GF(2^8) will add complexity to both the BIP and its implementations. However, the maths in GF(2^8) is so simple that this additional complexity can be considered negligible. As a co-author of a bitcoin application running on a real microcontroller (not the sort of big-iron thing Trezor runs on), I was also going to implement my SSS over a 256-bit prime field. (I am not going into 512-bit master seeds at this time.) Uniform processing of secrets of any size (instead of using different primes for different cases) is a valid argument in favour of GF(2^8), though. I have no preference one way or another.