Talk:Proactive secret sharing

Untitled
Watch out. In my opinion there are some problems in the details of the article.
 * For example, the entire process with a fresh polynomial must be repeated every time again (which is not properly explained, just a magic upper index shows up in $$x_{i}^{t + 1} = x_{i}^{t} + u_{1,i}^{t} + ... + u_{n,i}^{t}$$. If you do not use a fresh polynomial all the time, there is a nasty attack an attacker could do on the scheme :-)
 * Moreover, for delta, there are two notations, the notation in $$u_{i,j} = \delta_{i}(j)$$ and the notation with two indices - and it is not explained how they are connected.
 * Next, "Each player $$i$$ sends all other players $$u_{i,j} = \delta_{i}(j)$$" is not a necessary step. This should be coordinated differently and, even then, is a restriction of the general form of the scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.205.231 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Finite fields necessary?
I'm not sure if we fully need to define a finite field of 11 in the example. It would make it much easier for someone to read and understand the general idea without that much detail. I know that the writer is probably being complete but even in the original Shamir's Secret Sharing article, did they include a disclaimer stating it is only done to illustrate the basic idea and that in reality it is not complete. Just a thought. Yelojakit (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)