On Sunday 14 Oct 2012 22:40:55 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012, 05:41:25 schrieb xor:
> > I strongly feel that this might be just a different model of the same stuff
> > we do with current web of trust systems
>
> I thought the same at the beginning, but I now think it
Am Samstag, 13. Oktober 2012, 05:41:25 schrieb xor:
> I strongly feel that this might be just a different model of the same stuff
> we do with current web of trust systems
I thought the same at the beginning, but I now think it might actually have a
different domain.
In a web of trust, an update
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:24:32PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:22:32PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > Sadao@JXXNvLaHdNMysx7GmY5~L4aCoMuQV85oJM9OIqhkTR8 wrote :
> > > >
> > > > Let's consider
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:57:43AM +0200, xor wrote:
> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 05:41:25 AM xor wrote:
> > I strongly feel that this might be just a different model of the same stuff
> > we do with current web of trust systems
>
> Well, I should admit that what I said here is a bit over simpl
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 05:41:25 AM xor wrote:
> I strongly feel that this might be just a different model of the same stuff
> we do with current web of trust systems
Well, I should admit that what I said here is a bit over simplified.
Maybe I should only say that the algorithmic complexity
I strongly feel that this might be just a different model of the same stuff we
do with current web of trust systems
Further it could be implemented with the existing key mechanisms most likely
instead of bloating up the node with a complex new key scheme.
What I especially dislike is that you ar
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:22:32PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Sadao@JXXNvLaHdNMysx7GmY5~L4aCoMuQV85oJM9OIqhkTR8 wrote :
> > >
> > > Let's consider the Frost message system and see what exactly it lacks to
> > > be spam pro
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Sadao@JXXNvLaHdNMysx7GmY5~L4aCoMuQV85oJM9OIqhkTR8 wrote :
> >
> > Let's consider the Frost message system and see what exactly it lacks to
> > be spam protected. Every board has one SSK key pair. The public key of
> > the board is
Sadao@JXXNvLaHdNMysx7GmY5~L4aCoMuQV85oJM9OIqhkTR8 wrote :
>
> Let's consider the Frost message system and see what exactly it lacks to
> be spam protected. Every board has one SSK key pair. The public key of
> the board is normally known by everyone and used to download the
> messages in the very
