4 ms·

As noted by other people, your idea, especially in its final version, has already been proposed. The basic problem with the proposal is that it fundamentally m

As noted by other people, your idea, especially in its final version, has already been proposed. The basic problem with the proposal is that it fundamentally misunderstands how the economics of spam works. Especially when it comes to the idea of using proof-of-CPU time to generate the cost to send mail. Spam generally comes from compromised machines, so the people who would actually be paying the cost of sending mail are not the spammers, but those who own the compromised systems. In effect, you'd be making everyone but the spammers pay for their email. (And the idea of being able to pay extra to get higher priority is going to be a godsend to spammers--historically, spammers were the most eager to implement anti-spam technologies such as SPF because of the boost it gives the spam.)

dotancohen 5y ago
> using proof-of-CPU time to generate the cost to send mail. Spam generally > comes from compromised machines I see, thank you. You are correct, but it would greatly reduce the quantity of spam. Additionally, such compromised machines should now become (how to word this) more-unusable :) which may accelerate incentive to resolve the issue.
littlestymaar 5y ago
The parent comment isn't talking about proof of work it's talking about actual payment. In practice payment system are much more rarely compromised (or at least it doesn't last long) and if you could compromise someone's payment system you'd not bother sending spam, you'd just take the money and run.
- jasode 5y ago
  >The parent comment isn't talking about proof of work it's talking about actual payment. I think he was replying to this that the gp wrote: "The best part of this system is that it really does not require actual money [...] , he could just _mine_ the coins he uses to send the mail with."
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    Indeed I somehow missed that last paragraph >_<
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      I did notice that bit, and it seemed bizarre and sort-of irrelevant to his point.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dotancohen 5y ago

> using proof-of-CPU time to generate the cost to send mail. Spam generally > comes from compromised machines I see, thank you. You are correct, but it would greatly reduce the quantity of spam. Additionally, such compromised machines should now become (how to word this) more-unusable :) which may accelerate incentive to resolve the issue.

littlestymaar 5y ago

The parent comment isn't talking about proof of work it's talking about actual payment. In practice payment system are much more rarely compromised (or at least it doesn't last long) and if you could compromise someone's payment system you'd not bother sending spam, you'd just take the money and run.

jasode 5y ago
>The parent comment isn't talking about proof of work it's talking about actual payment. I think he was replying to this that the gp wrote: "The best part of this system is that it really does not require actual money [...] , he could just _mine_ the coins he uses to send the mail with."
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Indeed I somehow missed that last paragraph >_<
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I did notice that bit, and it seemed bizarre and sort-of irrelevant to his point.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]