From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WXK3a-0001GR-Jl
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:38:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.179; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f179.google.com; 
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WXK3Z-0007sx-L7
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:38:30 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p9so177382lbv.24
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.246.43 with SMTP id xt11mr307984lac.34.1396917503005;
	Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC7yFxRndCS=aEWcvmrFTf-WZg9Ht+pZmLZ-4sdBpdv+vJQoRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3837746.jqWvB0Uxrs@crushinator>
	<CAC7yFxQXn=c7CEC326yMx4bF7Cv7Gc62shS7xU0XvSp5sQSGZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1529077.7WHAYP4Dpn@crushinator>
	<CAC7yFxRndCS=aEWcvmrFTf-WZg9Ht+pZmLZ-4sdBpdv+vJQoRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT22HdS=MQU4B1vWUUKDk+pJiLGmGnBF9E9Zcs_swTN3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Nikita Schmidt <nikita@megiontechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
	[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?209.85.217.179>]
	1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM         SF_NO_SPF_SPAM
X-Headers-End: 1WXK3Z-0007sx-L7
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
 Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:38:30 -0000

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nikita Schmidt
<nikita@megiontechnologies.com> wrote:
> Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will
> need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway.

Nah, it doesn't. E.g.
https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker/source/eb33f9c8e441ffef457a79d76ceed1ea20ab3059:base58.c

> However, the maths in GF(2^8) is so simple that this
> additional complexity can be considered negligible.
[...]
> 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.

I think this is really one of the bigger selling points.