> The sneaky part was requiring hash cash only when an identity is
> generated. Normal posting wouldn't require any hash cash, because the
Indeed, that is clever. I'd be interested in seeing a concrete proposal on
how to use hash cash to generate identities.
> 1 kilobyte per insert. The hash cash is essential; without it, the
> flooders could post under thousands of identities and make filtering
> impossible.
It would make filtering by identity on a fully public forum impossible.
> Like how? An obnoxious kid can render any public forum useless by flooding
> it all day long. fnnews wouldn't stand a chance. My proposed mechanish is
> the only way I can think of to diminish the effects of flooding from
> "dooming" to "annoying." Once you hit that critical threshold, flooding is
> boring and nobody does it.
Moderated mailing lists due just fine on the Internet today. IRC survives
despite having the highest concentration of obnoxious punk ass kids trying
to flood everything. So it seems to be that there must be some reason that
these things are surviving even though they have the same problems of
anonymous flooders. Sure, you can say they just ban flooders by IP or
e-mail address and of course they'd have to ban all anonymous e-mail like
hotmail. But I think there's more to it than that. I think if you just
have a moderated space then flooders get bored because they never see the
fruits of their labor. There are of course the few really obnoxious people
that will change nick/address over and over again to continue to try to
flood a space until their entire ISP has been blocked. That's particularly
tricky. I'd still like to think some more before we institute a system for
stopping obnoxious people that also makes it harder for low-end
participants to participate and doesn't stop Them from flooding.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-chat
