[hashcash] Re: getting rid of stamp value variance (Re: Re: Hashcashvs. Time?)
- From: "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:23:20 -0400
Adam Back wrote:
> btw In thinking about v2 stamp formats, it occurred to me that if you
> include the stamp length in the stamp, you will not get larger than
> expected stamps ever.
>
> (Where the modified definition of value is 0 if stamp-bits less than
> measured bits, and equal to stamp-bts otherwise, where stamp-bits is
> the number of bits defined in the stamp).
>
> Eg.
>
> 0:20:040426:adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:123ab234fddee7
>
> (Anonomasia first proposed putting the stamp value in the stamp)
>
> Of course this has no impact on the time-variance.
this confuses me a little bit. It sounds like at first that you are
saying if you include the stamp length in a stamp, when sending stamps
and then you'll never receive a stamp of greater length? but then you
say stuff that sounds like you're talking about letting self define the
value of a stamp.
could you please help me with my confusion? It's Monday morning.
by the way, it looks like camram in a sendmail milter may be happening
today if all goes well. pseudo blog with ugly details coming soon. ;-)
---eric
Other related posts:
- » [hashcash] Re: getting rid of stamp value variance (Re: Re: Hashcashvs. Time?)
