[16152] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: will spammers early adopt hashcash? (Re: Spam Spotlight on Reputation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Shostack)
Mon Sep 13 13:39:35 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:37:47 -0400
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Cc: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, bear <bear@sonic.net>,
Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@danisch.de>,
"R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com,
Eric Johansson <esj@harvee.org>
In-Reply-To: <41459018.7040909@algroup.co.uk>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:18:32PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
| Adam Shostack wrote:
|
| >On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 04:13:13PM -0400, Adam Back wrote:
| >
| >| Well we'll see. If they have lots of CPU from zombies and can get and
| >| maintain more with limited effort maybe even they can, and CAMRAM's
| >| higher cost stamp on introductions only will prevail as the preferred
| >| method.
| >
| >Adam,
| >
| > You've thought about this more than me. What do you see as
| >equilibrium postal rates if the spammers have 10k, 100k, or a million
| >nodes to send?
| >
| > Will spammers run under nice? Use your graphics card as a
| >co-processor? Is the rate of new vulns high enough to keep their CPU
| >pools filled?
|
| We have some figures for that kind of stuff in
| http://www.apache-ssl.org/proofwork.pdf.
Thanks! That was exactly what I was hoping wouldn't get said, because
I no longer believe that hashcash is substantially useful.
Adam S
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
