[15550] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Laurie)
Fri Jun 4 13:26:05 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:50:36 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>, cypherpunks@minder.net,
rah@shipwright.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <40AA92E7.4090907@cypherspace.org>
Adam Back wrote:
> Here's a forward of parts of an email I sent to Richard with comments on
> his and Ben's paper (sent me a pre-print off-list a couple of weeks ago):
>
> One obvious comment is that the calculations do not take account of
> the CAMRAM approach of charging for introductions only. You mention
> this in the final para of conclusions as another possible.
We wanted to assess whether pure proof-of-work helps. CAMRAM and other
approaches may well change the calculations, but they also introduce
lots of complications.
It seems we now have hard figures to support the notion that
proof-of-work cannot be a complete solution in itself. We will be making
that clearer in a revision of the paper (and fixing some errors).
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
