<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2018-01-08&#xA;📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt; The construction also&#xA;&gt; &gt; will silently result in the user getting a different private key if&#xA;&gt; &gt; they enter the wrong passphrase-- which could lead to funds loss.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Again, this is by design and it is main point why plausible deniability&#xA;&gt; is achieved both in BIP39 and SLIP39. If we used a different&#xA;&gt; construction we&#39;d loose plausible deniability.&#xA;&#xA;Can you explain _exactly_ what scenario the &#34;plausible deniability&#34; feature&#xA;refers to?&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;https://petertodd.org &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@petertodd.org&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;A non-text attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;Name: signature.asc&#xA;Type: application/pgp-signature&#xA;Size: 455 bytes&#xA;Desc: Digital signature&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180108/a83273e6/attachment.sig&gt;</html></oembed>