[hashcash] Re: [camram-spam] Re: Re: Friday news
- From: Steve Schear <s.schear@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: camram-spam@xxxxxxxxxx, hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:24:04 -0800
At 09:19 AM 3/26/2004, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
>Adam Back wrote:
>
>>I notice in that article that it says CAMRAM requires 23 bit hashcash
>>stamps. This is a stamp considered of sufficient value to add a user
>>to a whitelist, right?
>
>that's *my* interpretation/evaluation. Remember, we really don't know
>where the right threshold is because we don't have a sufficient deployment
>or body of experience. For the purposes of the article, I needed to put a
>stake in the ground and so, 23 bits.
IIRC (Invisible IRC Project) chose 27-bit collisions, which seems to be
working fine. It should be noted that IIRC uses hashcash for nym
registration, a much less frequent event.
steve
- References:
- [hashcash] Friday news
- From: Eric S. Johansson
- [hashcash] Re: Friday news
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: Friday news
- From: Eric S. Johansson
Other related posts:
- » [hashcash] Re: [camram-spam] Re: Re: Friday news
- [hashcash] Friday news
- From: Eric S. Johansson
- [hashcash] Re: Friday news
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: Friday news
- From: Eric S. Johansson