Re: message dependent hashcash => no double spend database (Re: hashcash spam prevention & firewalls)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

William Geiger <whgiii@invweb.net> writes:
> Well IMNSHO hashcahs mail sucks!! It opens up the pandora's box of usage
> based charges for everything done on the 'net. What will be next? FTP
> sites charging hashcash for DL's? WebPages charging hashcash per hit? DNS
> servers charging per lookup? Routers charging per packet?

We already pay usage charges indirectly.

That is to say, in the UK you pay per second phone line charges.  It
would actually save me money if the net was a bit more responsive.  If
I was paying packet delivery at guaranteed performance, I would spend
less money on the phone charges.

Flat rate charges is nice enough, and the way I would like things to
stay, however I tend to think that usage charges would not be as bad
as you expect, because it would put competitive pressure on ISPs to
provide performance.

(My current ISP has truly pitiful performance.)

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`