At 10:40 AM 1/30/2009, Thomas Coppi wrote:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any documented
examples of a botnet being used for something more interesting than
just sending spam or DDoS?
There are good botnets and bad botnets.
Good ones ask you if you want to join, bad ones
John Levine writes:
http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf
I would also point out that nothing is preventing anyone from
implementing their own epostage. Just send your email via a paypal
Send Money, accompanied with whatever postage you feel is appropriate.
No magic, no standards track epostage,
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:40:12 -0700
Thomas Coppi thisnuke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Indeed. And don't forget that through the magic of botnets, the bad
guys have vastly more compute power available than the good guys.
Just out
You know those crackpot ideas that keep showing up in snake oil crypto?
Well, e-postage is snake oil antispam.
While I think this statement may be true for POW coinage, because for a bot
net it grows on trees, for money that traces back to the international
monetary exchange system, it may not be
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Indeed. And don't forget that through the magic of botnets, the bad
guys have vastly more compute power available than the good guys.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any documented
examples of a botnet
Richard Clayton and I claim that PoW doesn't work:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf
I bumped into Cynthia Dwork, who originallyinvented PoW, at a CEAS
meeting a couple of years ago, and she said she doesn't think it
works, either.
R's,
John
jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 wrote:
You know those crackpot ideas that keep showing up in snake oil crypto?
Well, e-postage is snake oil antispam.
While I think this statement may be true for POW coinage, because for a bot
net it grows on trees, for money that
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Jerry Leichter wrote:
[Proposals to use reversible computation, which in principle consume
no energy, elided.]
There's a contradiction here between the computer science and economic
parts of the problem being discussed. What gives a digital coin
John Gilmore writes:
The last thing we need is to deploy a system designed to burn all
available cycles, consuming electricity and generating carbon dioxide,
all over the Internet, in order to produce small amounts of bitbux to
get emails or spams through.
It's interesting to consider the
(Also, it's not clear that a deterministic POW works well for an
application like Bitcoin; it might let the owner of the fastest computer
win every POW race, giving him too much power.)
Indeed. And don't forget that through the magic of botnets, the bad
guys have vastly more compute power
On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
John Gilmore writes:
The last thing we need is to deploy a system designed to burn all
available cycles, consuming electricity and generating carbon
dioxide,
all over the Internet, in order to produce small amounts of bitbux to
get emails or
On Jan 26, 2009, at 13:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
If only. People have been saying for at least a decade that all we
have to do to solve the spam problem is to charge a small fee for
every message sent.
I was one of those people, a decade and a half ago, on the cypherpunks
mailing list. In
If POW tokens do become useful, and especially if they become money,
machines will no longer sit idle. Users will expect their computers to
be earning them money (assuming the reward is greater than the cost to
operate).
Computers are already designed to consume much less electricity when
Can't we just convert actual money in a bank account into bitbux --
cheaply and without a carbon tax? Please?
If only. People have been saying for at least a decade that all we
have to do to solve the spam problem is to charge a small fee for
every message sent. Unfortunately, there's a
14 matches
Mail list logo
