[Cryptography] Proof of Work is the worst way to do a BlockChain

[Ersin Taskin]

2018-02-19 10:49 GMT+03:00 John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>:

> In article <6012d900-c6d6-4fc4-b0c0-ef7068a0c4ea at echeque.com> you write:
> >However a better system would be pay to send, be paid to receive.  Then
> >people would honeypot the spammers.
>
> That is another WKBI, one with an expired patent.
>
> >Crypto currency payments tend to be massively replicated to avoid
> >various failure modes, but obviously this is uneconomic for
> >micropayments, which problem can be fixed by aggregating very small
> >payments through single peer sidechains.  You would have to trust the
> >single peer, but you are only trusting him for modest amounts.
>

Can u provide the expired patent if it is easy for you to spot?

When I tried to attack PoW I also jumped to the anti-spam topic, on which I
never worked professionally. I was bothered with the unnecessary energy
consumption at PoW. Then, I thought transaction fees (as in Bitcoin)
provide a better solution. Just like PoS over PoW in consensus. I noticed
that PoW works when it creates an unfair race against the adversary. I
tried to look for ways increasing the unfairness against the adversary. The
problem with tansaction fees would be (i) nobody likes to pay and (ii) who
will receive the money is an issue. I figured out that if the sender pays
the receiver this will increase the unfairness against the attacker because
non-spammers correspond with eachother while the spammers just broadcast.
Alice sends Bob a mail, and Bob sends a mail to Alice. A lightening! of
creation stroke me. Alice mails Bob who mails Charles who mails David who
mails Alice. Since the sender pays the fee to the receiver then honest
users will pay a net cost fluctiating around 0. Taking into account
companies mailing/broadcasting to their clients and receving some responses
will pay a net cost which is OK and the clients will receive some
negligible money for their tiny attention. If a client responds he will
reimburse the mailer. However, the spammer who broadcasts without a
response at all has to pay a lot because the asymmetry is far higher: The
honest pays almost zero under transaction fees that can kill a sapmmer. So
if the sender pays the recevier the system becomes (i) simple, (ii) fair,
and (iii) secure. I got seduced by an ICO opportunity (off the record):
MailCoin. We create MailCoin blcokchain mail system to fight against spam.
It will be based on PoP to be fast. Then I reminded myself that I dont have
time and I have a goddam paper to finish. Then I saw this mail thread
started by me getting to this point.

Can you please provide me feedback about the idea above? Has it been
tried/published/patented? I cannot think of a better solution to fight
spam. Let the sender pay the receiver. The coin company does not get fees
apart from creating the entire amount to liquidify the mail system. It will
be inflationary to fight against volatility. Can be pegged to USD just like
USDT or even better be more stable than USD. The coin of communication
among people. One mail costs 1 MC always. We arrange the cost of 1 MC such
that it remains as the most stable coin in the world. The money created can
be used to develop and maintain the system and maybe apply it to other
means of human communication like sms, phone-calls, etc. My attention is
valuble and so is yours. My attention is a store of value and so is yours.

I think spam phone calls are far worse. I made the mistake of giving my
mobile phone to the management of the residence site from which I purchased
an apartment. Since then I receive calls from real-state brokers like hell.
Then came the insurance agents, hospitals for check-up campaigns, etc. I
seriously decided to change my mobile number which turned out to be
impossible in practice. It was hell and there is no anti-spam for that.

The service providers do not incur extra costs since it is just payment
data attached to the mail and a basic call to the blockchain. The mail
system just checks the validity of the payment through the fast blockchain
based on POP (POP has perfect use case for this) and executes the payment.
There are many ways to implement this scheme, which I leave as
implementation details to be covered in another mail.

1. Would it be a too long journey to put this into SMTP?
2. Should we take this project to IETF, W3C, IEEE, etc.?
3. Would this list work on this project to make sure that it serves the
Internet rather than becomes a speculative token project? Remember that
Bitcoin was born in a mail list environment.

Spam is sooo bad. It is an evil parasite sucking the blood of the Internet.

"This shit's got to go" Jacque Fresco.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20180222/abf53e32/attachment.html>