Closed kirillkovalenko closed 4 years ago
I will check the code. I have already read again the relevant part of the specification (point 2 of design rationale of SLIP-00039) and it seems to be a valid use-case per specification and common sense, too.
@kirillkovalenko I have implemented a fix on the underlying library and have a pending PR for the fix.
Notice that if the people from the 2 groups know each other, some of them could cooperate to recover the common group secret without complying to member thresholds in any of the separate groups. So although this tool does not provide a way to combine member shares from different groups, I anticipate the security in your example is similar to a single 3-of-11 group.
I anticipate the security in your example is similar to a single 3-of-11 group.
@wigy-opensource-developer Thank you for the clarification.
I have implemented a fix on the underlying library and have a pending PR for the fix.
Can you please link the RP here for reference?
Of course. The backlinks hide among the comments in this thread ☝️
@wigy-opensource-developer ping
Pong. Sorry, will have some time Monday to proceed. Upstream patch was accepted, I just need to integrate the new version, but this week was not about work.
You can build the fixed version from the https://github.com/Internet-of-People/slip39-rust/tree/fix/group_threshold_one branch, but I cannot publish the version on creates.io before the upstream patch is published as well.
Released the fixes as 0.1.1 on crates.io
I wanted to split a mnemonic into 2 groups where only one is required to restore the seed. I'm running the following command:
In the result output I see
but I expect it to be
Is it a bug or am I missing something?