[15966] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: RPOW - Reusable Proofs of Work
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Crawford)
Fri Aug 20 17:37:46 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:34:00 -0500
From: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
In-reply-to: <20040819054557.1B3CE57E2B@finney.org>
To: crypto <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
>> I'm wondering how applicable RPOW is. Generally speaking, all
>> the practical applications I can think of for a proof-of-work
>> are defeated if proofs-of-work are storable, transferable, or
>> reusable.
>
> I have some code to play online games with cryptographic protection,
> cards and dice,
> and I am planning to modify it to let people make bets with RPOWs as
> the betting chips.
If you think of POW as a possible SPAM mitigation, how does the first
receiving MTA assure the next MTA in line that a message was "paid
for?" Certainly the mail relay doesn't want to do new work, but the
second MTA doesn't know that the first isn't a spambot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
