nostr:nprofile1qqsfrkatna3xvr54ykzgp5hjelmdeld4z0eg4p06f764a6vn5k6xszgpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctvqydhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuum9d45hxmmv9ejx2askw6tvd might as well bother you about this as well. (Also compliments on having one of the best webpages ever)
nostr:nprofile1qqsxwkuyle67y94tj378gw8w2xw2wa6nwmwlqhddlwnz0z7sztsaw2qppamhxue69uhku6n4d4czumt99undwqnn , is there a risk of figuring out the key if for example you have 100 FROST sets (3 out of 5), and you have 2 of each of those 100 sets?
Is theoretically yes, at what point would such a risk become somewhat practical?
Discussion
agree w waxwing!
Similar to Shamirs secret sharing, having T-1 shares actually provides you zero information. There is no information leakage. Using a finite field with "wrapping around" is fundamental for this property. The wiki page on SSS is really solid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_secret_sharing
And thanks! It used to be more nuts but i slimmed it down a bit