2
$\begingroup$

I read this paper (Securing Bitcoin wallets via a new DSA/ECDSA threshold signature scheme) that illustrated that threshold signature is the best solution to avoid single point of failure

but I think multi-sig is better than threshold signature in term of time efficiency because it is non-interactive algorithm and each party can sign separately not like threshold

I am wondering if that correct inference or not ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

There are some possible advantages to threshold signing. First, it enables a more flexible setting where the key can be divided into $n$ parts and any subset of $t$ can be used to sign. Second, you can go from holding a single key in one place to distributing it and back without making any changes. Third, you can achieve a type of proactive security by generating a new resharing of the signing key at frequent intervals.

However, you are right that for the very basic usage, multi-sigs will be much simpler. (I don't think that efficiency is a huge issue here since you typically wouldn't be doing a huge number of transactions all the time. Bitcoin isn't good for many fast transactions.)

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.