[hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Jonathan Morton <chromi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 00:03:51 +0100
> The other objective is if it fits inside one SHA1 block it helps the
> recipient verify the stamp faster.
>
> This makes a slight conflict between the senders interests and the
> receivers (hostile sender may send massive stamp which costs nothing
> extra practially to compute). If we cared about this we would ideally
> want to enforce small stamps on sender (measured in SHA1 blocks) to
> make the receivers verification fast. Simple "enforcement" would be
> if it cost the sender disproportionately more.
This is not significant. Say the "average" P4-based server, using a
normal 1-pipe scalar SHA-1 routine, can process 1 million chained
blocks per second - this is clearly a reasonable assumption, if we just
add a little overhead to the fastmint results.
Since each block is 64 bytes, to saturate this capacity an attacker
would have to send a minimum of 64 MB/sec worth of mail to the server,
even if the hashcash token took up the vast majority of each mail.
This would be a DoS by almost anyone's standards - it's effectively the
bandwidth limit of Gigabit Ethernet - and should be easy enough to
detect and block by conventional means.
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
- Follow-Ups:
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Adam Back
- References:
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Malcolm Howell
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Adam Back
Other related posts:
- » [hashcash] Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- » [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Malcolm Howell
- [hashcash] Re: Hashcash performance improvements
- From: Adam Back