Author: Nikita Schmidt 2014-04-04 13:51:07
Published on: 2014-04-04T13:51:07+00:00
In an email thread, a concern was raised about the fingerprint field being specified as a 16-bit field and the dependency on SHA-512 for a small embedded application. The proposal is balancing between consistency with the rest of the proposal, where everything is done via HashL, and consistency with the general practice of generating fingerprints with SHA-256, like in Base58Check. It is stated that users are accustomed to relying on the prefix of the base58 encoding to understand what the object is, so it should start with a common prefix such as "SS". Furthermore, suggestions were made to use the same P256 prime as the elliptic curve for consistency's sake, and encode j rather than x[j] to allow for the first 256 shares to be encoded. A sentinel value reserved for future extensions was also discussed and it was suggested that without the optional fields, a secret share still fits into a 29x29 QR code, which would be more practical for scenarios such as engraving Shamir secret shares onto metal bars by hand with an engraving tool.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T17:15:54.769493+00:00