[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: amortizable hashcash paper

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Fwd: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: amortizable hashcash paper
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 18:25:32 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

Somehow, eats anonymous mail from january occasionally (?). 
Anyway, here it is.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: amortizable hashcash paper
Date: Wed,  7 May 2003 15:05:08 -0700
From: "January" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden, address@hidden

My apologies for being unclear.  I was thinking of spam control
in the context of a message board system layered on top of afs,
so the postings would persist and be rated rather than delivered.

That said, since filtering OUT things (spam) is a large part
of the goal, I think a negative rating capability would be needed.
I don't see how to do it with just positive voting.

Perhaps a different approach is needed.  Ideas I've had to date
with developing a local trust based system for moderators
(I "trust" the rating opinions of people who rate things
the same way I have rated things in the past) have just
been too heavyweight on the searches.

Any other ideas and opinions out there?

On Tue, 06 May 2003 14:50:45 -0700 Christian Grothoff

>Hash: SHA1
>I don't think "no" can be used for spam-control since the message
>would be
>delivered to too many people before the 'no' could possibly come
>into effect.
>On peers suppressing "no" votes, I think I should reformulate a
>bit. Bad peers
>can not suppress "yes" votes since the other peers would accumulate
>the best
>votes, the malicious peers would just slow down the "counting" process.
> In
>the case of "no" votes, this would also apply, but the real problem
>is that
>even the good peers would probably tend to *discard* content that
>has been
>voted against a lot. Since the bad guys would discard "no" votes
>and the good
>guys would discard the whole RBlock, "no"s would never really spread
>we decide to keep the RBlocks for the useless content anyway, but
>I'd rather
>just discard content that has had few votes and only keep the good
>Does this help? Other opinions?
>On Tuesday 06 May 2003 04:29 pm, January wrote:
>> Isn't a "no" vote capability important for building a
>> spam control (malicious content) system?  And can't a
>> malicious host discard  "yes" votes as easily as
>> dicarding "no" votes if they are interested in suppressing
>> content?

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email:

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger

Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program:


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]