[hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Atom 'Smasher' <atom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:34:01 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Jonathan Morton wrote:
according to my own non-scientific research, most email addresses are
15-30 characters. the amount of padding these stamps contain just seems
ridiculous.
Most users won't see it. How many ordinary users do you know who
regularly read mail with "full headers" displayed? The padding is there
for performance reasons - putting the tail of the count field in the
right place adds 10-15% performance, easily.
Anyway, the padding gets "used up" quite neatly if you start adding
extension fields, such as:
==========================
the padding is used up until we hit what, about 88 bytes being stamped?
and then we jump to a 116 byte stamp.
i agree that most people will never know it's there, but an email
addressed to 10 people would carry >1K of extra headers (the trailing
spaces when using "X" makes this worse). i'm not saying that this will
break email, but the extra message size can become non-trivial.
i'm also not suggesting that this is any reason not to use hashcash... but
it seems like there's room to optimize this and make the stamps more
compact.
...atom
_________________________________________
PGP key - http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt
762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
-------------------------------------------------
"Your password must be at least 18770 characters and
cannot repeat any of your previous 30689 passwords.
Please type a different password. Type a password
that meets these requirements in both text boxes."
-- Microsoft takes security seriously in
Knowledge Base Article Q276304.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: What is this gibberish?
Comment: http://atom.smasher.org/links/#digital_signatures
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJBSmk/AAoJEAx/d+cTpVci4CwH/0bSAwwZRvXs2GzdKKa6fksB
tbZuzgKUOnXfYgdmHJwoI5rluJz6Bbvff6bic49qCvtKklpcapwtlOBTW/stJEK0
AzgCR2yyugysjqNoi+awYhZijZTtsRSfnP1Sr9x+qE4BwM+nyy4oWF+AqwqKdabu
pV2+UqBpUmkWObY091MnDFiOFKdAeS8Bh9HsuW6xDVtUu3nkFwx9hwvQiQ7q6X0Y
hpFQSJ6qMHooZlsbo+UpB5L1DbNBYADkfcdb5XmxdNuw97XTbqAub85RFjodwlWn
+LLq7LquOwapuufKOHtE2a+Nyt+zpO9Irbzq4xTCG8Z8+1HgJ3rpoOav6G8aQxQ=
=R4fP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Follow-Ups:
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Jonathan Morton
- References:
- [hashcash] libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Jonathan Morton
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Jonathan Morton
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] comment on reducing padding (Re: Re: libfastmint update 20040915)
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Jonathan Morton
Other related posts:
- » [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- » [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- » [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- » [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
according to my own non-scientific research, most email addresses are 15-30 characters. the amount of padding these stamps contain just seems ridiculous.
Most users won't see it. How many ordinary users do you know who regularly read mail with "full headers" displayed? The padding is there for performance reasons - putting the tail of the count field in the right place adds 10-15% performance, easily.
Anyway, the padding gets "used up" quite neatly if you start adding extension fields, such as:
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Jonathan Morton
- [hashcash] libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Jonathan Morton
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Jonathan Morton
- [hashcash] Re: libfastmint update 20040915
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] comment on reducing padding (Re: Re: libfastmint update 20040915)
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Atom 'Smasher'
- [hashcash] Re: comment on reducing padding
- From: Jonathan Morton