On Sunday 01 March 2015 19:58:19 Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Am 01.03.2015 um 17:45 schrieb MFPA <2014-667rhzu3dc-lists- gro...@riseup.net>: > >> and also gets rid of spam > >> by requiring a proof of work to send something. > > > > Surely, "proof of work" is evidence of performing some otherwise > > unnecessary CPU cycles. This wastes energy. In a system used by > > billions of people, lots of energy. > > That "wasted energy" is a lot less than the energy we currently waste on > spam, especially if you take into consideration the amount of human time > wasted. The majority of the e-mail traffic is used up by spam.
And most spam is sent by bots. The spammers don't really care how much energy the bots burn. Yes, the amount of spam might decrease because the bots cannot hammer out that many bitmessages as SMTP messages per second, but your hypothesis that BitMessage would get rid of spam is unrealistic. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
