For a dns server this is irrelevant, but what impact do these cookies have on privacy if I'd use it while browsing? And how long are these cookies meant to be v

For a dns server this is irrelevant, but what impact do these cookies have on privacy if I'd use it while browsing? And how long are these cookies meant to be valid for? To have a speed-up effect, it needs to be long enough to cover two separate website visits, but to preserve privacy you might argue the requirement is exactly the opposite. I would be curious if anyone knows if a scheme like Zcash was considered. No, not another shitcoin, it's from 1983 and uses RSA blind signatures: > Blind signatures can also be used to provide unlinkability, which prevents the signer from linking the blinded message it signs to a later un-blinded version that it may be called upon to verify. In this case, the signer's response is first "un-blinded" prior to verification in such a way that the signature remains valid for the un-blinded message. I guess the issue would be too large signature sizes are needed for RSA, and that the verification operation is asymmetrically slower than what a client has to do, leading to a denial of service attack? Maybe the server could have (configurably) a per-IP limit of, for example, 4 opens per 20 seconds (bursty) and a global limit of 10% of CPU time as measured over 10 seconds. Above those limits, clients just have to do a 3WHS as usual or re-use connections if the protocol allows (http does). I'm probably overthinking this but without blind signatures, it seems like no browser would enable it for privacy reasons. Technically it's illegal to use this for tracking without a reason (such as user consent or fraud protection or so), but that won't stop everyone from doing it.