3. Proof-of-work analysis

[Ben Laurie]

Adam Back wrote:
> Here's a forward of parts of an email I sent to Richard with comments on
> his and Ben's paper (sent me a pre-print off-list a couple of weeks ago):
> 
> One obvious comment is that the calculations do not take account of
> the CAMRAM approach of charging for introductions only.  You mention
> this in the final para of conclusions as another possible.

We wanted to assess whether pure proof-of-work helps. CAMRAM and other 
approaches may well change the calculations, but they also introduce 
lots of complications.

It seems we now have hard figures to support the notion that 
proof-of-work cannot be a complete solution in itself. We will be making 
that clearer in a revision of the paper (and fixing some errors).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com