3 ms·

> because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in I have provided specific cases where the previously propose

> because you're unable to provide counterarguments to specific explanations of how it would fit in I have provided specific cases where the previously proposed use-cases wouldn't work. > they now have reputation with Google, while spammers burn n cycles continually for every message that they send because they keep getting flagged as spam. > The legitimate servers quickly build up reputation and stop having to solve challenges So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end.

throw10920 4y ago
> So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's clear to anyone who understands the basics of spam and Hashcash, and can use basic logic, that "So the spammers send a few warmup mails" literally doesn't change the effectiveness of Hashcash. Let me state it again: every new sender has to go through a reputation ramp-up process, but spammers are uniquely penalized by Hashcash because they have to repeatedly because after they start sending spam mail, they lose their reputation and have to start that process again. Normal users do not have to do this - they start a new server, solve a bunch of challenges, and then they don't have to do that again because they don't regularly burn their acquired reputation. You say > It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end. ...but you're unable to use basic logic on publicly-known facts (the vast majority of spammers send large amounts of spam; the vast majority of users send small amounts of email; reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose) to infer the above or generate a logically cohesive counterargument. Every time you can't give an answer, you fallback to an argument to authority.

throw10920 4y ago

> So the spammers send a few warmup mails. It's very naive of you to think spammers can't imitate legit sender behavior. It's clear to anyone who understands the basics of spam and Hashcash, and can use basic logic, that "So the spammers send a few warmup mails" literally doesn't change the effectiveness of Hashcash. Let me state it again: every new sender has to go through a reputation ramp-up process, but spammers are uniquely penalized by Hashcash because they have to repeatedly because after they start sending spam mail, they lose their reputation and have to start that process again. Normal users do not have to do this - they start a new server, solve a bunch of challenges, and then they don't have to do that again because they don't regularly burn their acquired reputation. You say > It's also clear you haven't seen or analyzed any significant amount of spam. The end. ...but you're unable to use basic logic on publicly-known facts (the vast majority of spammers send large amounts of spam; the vast majority of users send small amounts of email; reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose) to infer the above or generate a logically cohesive counterargument. Every time you can't give an answer, you fallback to an argument to authority.