[hashcash] Re: stamp creation std. deviation

  • From: Justin Guyett <justin@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:46:22 +0000

On 2004-08-13T11:10:05-0500, John Honan wrote:
> > Oh I see!  And this implies as you would just use a "19-bit" type B in
> > place of a "20-bit" type A, as it would cost 2x as much they are
> > exactly equivalent with regards to cost & variance.  QED.
> >
> > Adam
> 
> So scheme A (the current scheme) should be okay:
> 
> A. (as in v1) value = claimed_bits if claimed_bits <= measured_bits
> 
> Besides, it would be a real pity to throw away the one time someone
> generates a 160-bit stamp by accident!...  :-)

It doesn't get thrown away either in v0 or v1; it's just not counted for
more bits than was intended in v1.

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112


Other related posts: