cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-12-17 - Re: message dependent hashcash => no double spend database (Re: hashcash spam prevention & firewalls)

Header Data

From: phelix@vallnet.com
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 28f8f6aece600e34f3b08ec147033d153bc07dccadc5a55c6933969be6045f2f
Message ID: <349b9ea2.5036920@128.2.84.191>
Reply To: <3.0.3.32.19971214234241.03899220@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-17 10:02:33 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:02:33 +0800

Raw message

From: phelix@vallnet.com
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:02:33 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: message dependent hashcash => no double spend database  (Re: hashcash spam prevention & firewalls)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971214234241.03899220@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <349b9ea2.5036920@128.2.84.191>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 17 Dec 1997 02:21:48 -0600, in local.cypherpunks you wrote:

>.....
>> The implementation of the plan is a more or less impossible scheme. 
>
>Nyet. It can be phased in over time...people install the software, mailing
>lists warn their users to exempt them, and the big servers start asking for the
>hashcash, little servers pick it up. 
>
>.....

Yes, but if you just phase it in over time, what benefit, if any, will
users see until hashcash is fully deployed.  Until that time, people will
still have to accept email without hashcash or risk losing important
messages.  

We need to find some way for users to benefit from hashcash now, not 2
years from now when 90% of sites are using it.  The only thing I can think
of is having servers place "Hashcash-verified" headers on incoming mail so
that users can do positive filtering ("this is valid email") rather than
negative filtering ("this is spam").

I don't see people adopting hashcash unless there is some intermediate
benefit to doing so.

-- Phelix

Thread