Open Furunodo opened 4 years ago
Sounds good. Related comment from the test source:
I did some basic testing:
scheme | bits | password? | created in | recovered in |
---|---|---|---|---|
2of3 | 128 | no | python-shamir-mnemonic | your slip39 tool |
3of5 | 128 | no | python-shamir-mnemonic | your slip39 tool |
2of5 | 256 | no | python-shamir-mnemonic | your slip39 tool |
2of5 | 256 | yes | python-shamir-mnemonic | your slip39 tool |
3of5 | 128 | yes | python-shamir-mnemonic | your slip39 tool |
2of3 | 128 | yes | your slip39 tool | python-shamir-mnemonic |
2of3 | 128 | no | your slip39 tool | python-shamir-mnemonic |
2of3 | 256 | no | your slip39 tool | python-shamir-mnemonic |
2of3 | 256 | yes | your slip39 tool | python-shamir-mnemonic |
Also tested different order for shares, etc. Both tools seemed to generate and restore shares identically in my (limited) testing.
I see there's some automated testing already, which is great.
I'm happy to help set up some tests to compare this implementation with the other implementations, such as https://github.com/trezor/python-shamir-mnemonic
relates to #2 and #3