> On the other hand it's a nice idea...
That is what I thought. I don't expect to see it in 070, but I think
its great for a later release.
2008/3/3 Matthew Toseland <toad@???>:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:49, bbackde@??? wrote:
> > No complains from anyone? So we can expect this feature soon?
>
> We're in a feature freeze. That means you have to convince me that it's
> essential to have this for 0.7.0. Hash cash is not a panacea: IMHO it will
> have to be combined with CAPTCHAs and web of trust, therefore we will still
> need FMS. Because an attacker will probably have a powerful system, whereas a
> lot of users don't; an attacker might have native-optimised hashcash
> libraries, and a typical user won't, at least in the short term. A user might
> not be willing to wait more than 1 minute for a message's hashcash to be
> computed, on a slow system; this means an attacker can solve them every 5
> seconds on a faster system (twice the clock speed and four cores).
>
> Hash cash can be implemented in FMS without any change to the core. And it
> should only be necessary for FMS introductions, not later on. Just bolting it
> on to Frost would mean a very weak protection, at the cost of a new keytype.
> On the other hand it's a nice idea...
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM, <bbackde@???> wrote:
> > > This sounds like a good idea! No matter who uses it (fms, frost, thaw)
> > > could at least be sure
> > > that the sending costed the sender some cpu time. It could also
> > > restrict the amount of sent messages
> > > at all, considering the same cpu time. So it becomes more expensive
> > > and annoying for the spammer.
> > > Now its quite easy for him, he could even play crysis in parallell ;)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Michael Rogers <m.rogers@???>
> wrote:
> > > > bbackde@??? wrote:
> > > > > If I understand this correct, the node of the sender will have to
> > > > > compute a valid
> > > > > hash cash before actually sending the key? And receivers can easily
> check the
> > > > > hash cash and reject keys without a valid hash cash?
> > > >
> > > > Right - inserts without valid hash cash won't even be forwarded.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech@???
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
--
__________________________________________________
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__________________________________________________
