[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [freehaven-dev] Re: [Freenet-chat] MojoNation
I was thinking that Freenet could simply apply a "hash cash" like
algorithm between clients and servers. A client must interact
with a particular server to initiate a request, right? Before being
allowed to do so it is given a hash to "factor" (reverse factor I
guess), when it returns the correct result to the server, its request
is processed. The complexity of the calculation limits the
number of requests that can be submitted during a block of time,
limiting over-publication/over-retrieval. This complexity is
adjustable -- and could be on a per-server basis -- so the
operator could run a "cashless" node if they choose. It could
be as simple as allowing 1 publication per "hash", and say 5
retrievals -- again adjustable.
Storing/tracking "credits" in the system is probably overkill, IMHO.
The only difficulty I see is how to allow server-to-server traffic
to be cashless without a vulnerability to someone taking advantage
of that to write a "spam server".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Dingledine" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [freehaven-dev] Re: [Freenet-chat] MojoNation
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 07:06:27PM -0400, Joseph Sokol-Margolis wrote:
> > my memory about early freehaven talks was that we thought using some
> > sort of electronic/digital cash/currency system would be neat, and
> > generally solve a bunch of the problems we were worried about.
> > However, we weren't at all satisfied with the existing
> > electronic/digital cash/currency systems, so came up with the the
> > model freehaven uses. (trade disk space). if this mojo stuff is a
> > reasonable implentation of an electronic/digital cash/currency system,
> > then it's a reasonable win...
> > seph
> mojonation works because they have some centralized servers which manage
> transactions and accounts. a good distributed (decentralized) anonymous
> electronic cash would indeed be useful, and as far as i know there still
> isn't one available.
> their goals are not anonymity; rather, they want to be a ubiquitous
> efficient distributed file distribution system which focuses on document
> availability. of course, they need some amount of privacy in order to
> achieve this goal -- otherwise they'll get shut down and that's not so
> good for availability.
> but "strong" anonymity is not in their architecture.