On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Luke771 <luke771.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Luke771 schrieb: >> >>> I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im >>> talking about. >>> However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even >>> if the censors mark it down it right away as it's created) >>> >> >> "The censors"? There is no central authority to censor people. "Censors" can >> only censor the >> web-of-trust for those people that trust them and which want to see a >> censored net. You cant and >> should not prevent them from this, if they want it. >> >> > This have been discussed ?a lot. > the fact that censoship isnt done by a central authority but by a mob > rule is irrelevant. > Censorship in this contest is "blocking users based on the content of > their messages" > > ?The whole point ?is basically this: "A tool created to block flood > attacks ?is being used to discriminate against a group of users. > [pedophiles / gays / terrorist / dissidents / ...]
You don't have to repeat this again and again. We *are* aware of this problem. We need solution, not re-stating problem. Don't tell me frost is the solution -- it is being DoS'ed again. In fms, you can always adjust the MinLocalMessageTrust to get whatever message you please to read. ------ ya, you may call it censorship.. but it is the one every reader can opt-out with 2 clicks. ------- Even if majority abuse the system, the poster can always post, the reader may know who is being censored and adjust accordingly . In frost, when sb DoS the system... the poster cannot post anything. there is nothing a reader can do. Now, tell me, which one is better? [...] >> Why use this sort of announcement, if it takes several days? Announcement >> over captchas takes only >> around 24 hours, which is faster and needs less resources. So i dont see any >> real reason for >> hashcash-introductions. >> [...] > On the other hand, a malicious user who is able to create new identities > quickly enough (slave labor would do the trick) would still be capable > to send 75 messages per announced ID... so the 'grace period' should be > as small as possible to minimize this problem. Maybe 25 or 30 messages? As long as creating a new identity is free. 1 message is enough to flood the whole system. Not only that, Even ZERO message is enough to flood the whole system. --- if you can introduce thousands of identity in a few days, everybody would be busy polling from the "fake" identities. --
