Bastien TEINTURIER writes:
> I think there's another alternative than upfront payments to prevent spam,
> which is maybe less
> controversial (but potentially less effective as well - to be investigated).
>
> Why not adapt what has been done with email spam and PoW/merkle puzzles?
If we can't com
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> requiring a fee is equivalent to requiring proof-of-work, incentive-wise.
Not necessarily, given that
1) there is a finite bitcoin supply but an eventually infinite PoW
supply (relevant in the unlikely case fees are burned)
2) sats are transferrable, whereas PoW isn't (re
While I agree with most of your points, I think there are subtleties to
explore before
completely rejecting the idea.
every use of proof-of-work today (other than to power Bitcoin itself, as
> Bitcoin cannot support itself) can instead be done by using Bitcoins to
> impose this economic cost.
>
T
Good morning Bastien,
> I think there's another alternative than upfront payments to prevent spam,
> which is maybe less
> controversial (but potentially less effective as well - to be investigated).
>
> Why not adapt what has been done with email spam and PoW/merkle puzzles?
> The high-level id
> The high-level idea would be that the sender must solve a small PoW puzzle
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
I think there's another alternative than upfront payments to prevent spam,
which is maybe less
controversial (but potentially less effective as well - to be investigated).
Why not adapt what has been done with email spam and PoW/merkle puzzles?
The high-level idea would be that the sender must sol
