From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream•io>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New serialization/encoding format for key material
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkXhyGcHs3z-qq-eVwnTg3oqZf3dO25BtBY=PvTnOoucg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiL9S29MV-cxrqGMeaWADO5-C3ejmxY21V_qUGHjhDHGw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]
> For codes designed for length 341 (the first length enough to support
> 512 bits of data):
> * correct 1 error = 3 checksum characters
> * correct 2 errors = 7 checksum characters
> * correct 3 errors = 11 checksum characters
> * correct 4 errors = 15 checksum characters
> * correct 5 errors = 19 checksum characters
> * ...
> * correct 7 errors = 26 checksum characters (~ length * 1.25)
> * correct 13 errors = 51 checksum characters (~ length * 1.5)
> * correct 28 errors = 102 checksum characters (~ length * 2)
>
> So it really boils down to a trade-off between length of the code, and
> recovery properties.
>
At the risk of making the proposal more complex, I wonder if it might be
better to support multiple checksum variants? The trade-off between code
length and recovery seems to be largely determined by the user's medium of
storage, which is likely to vary from person to person. I personally would
probably be interested in the 51 or even 102 character checksums variants.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1272 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-15 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-30 6:30 shiva sitamraju
2018-05-30 14:08 ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-05-30 19:03 ` Jonas Schnelli
2018-06-03 16:51 ` Jonas Schnelli
2018-06-03 19:23 ` Pieter Wuille
2018-06-03 21:30 ` Jonas Schnelli
2018-06-13 2:44 ` Pieter Wuille
2018-06-15 15:54 ` Russell O'Connor [this message]
2018-06-23 19:49 ` Pieter Wuille
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-05-29 9:13 Jonas Schnelli
2018-06-13 14:58 ` Russell O'Connor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMZUoKkXhyGcHs3z-qq-eVwnTg3oqZf3dO25BtBY=PvTnOoucg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)io \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox