Talk:Proactive secret sharing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]