3 ms·

It's quite crazy to think that these guys not only were basically behind FB (they won the lawsuits, with an 's', proving it) but also saw Bitcoin early on. The

It's quite crazy to think that these guys not only were basically behind FB (they won the lawsuits, with an 's', proving it) but also saw Bitcoin early on. They bought at less than ten and were billionaires when it hit $10 K. So these dudes both "saw" FB and cryptocurrencies. Hate as much as you want on FB and cryptocurrencies, it's still quite a feat to have foreseen both. Regarding storing parts of the secret here and there: it's basically and "m out of n" scheme AFAICT. There are many variations of this but the overall idea is that you can afford to lose (n - m) parts and yet you'll be able to recover the secret. And if a thief were to steal parts, he'd need m parts to be able to recover the secret.

thinkmassive 5y ago
> Regarding storing parts of the secret here and there: it's basically and "m out of n" scheme AFAICT. There are many variations of this but the overall idea is that you can afford to lose (n - m) parts and yet you'll be able to recover the secret. And if a thief were to steal parts, he'd need m parts to be able to recover the secret. The difference between a Shamir scheme and a true multi-signature scheme is that the former requires combining the m-of-n pieces to reveal the single private key to sign a transaction, which is a huge vulnerability and single point of failure. Bitcoin script allows the m-of-n signatures to remain geographically dispersed, each signing the transaction with only their own key, so no single party ever needs to possess the full private key.