[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!
|
From: |
Andrew Gallagher |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...! |
|
Date: |
Fri, 27 May 2016 13:05:53 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0 |
On 27/05/16 12:54, Pascal Levasseur wrote:
>
> Please feel free to find the weaknesses in this suggestion !!!
The fundamental weakness in the proof of work requirement is trying to
apply it in a complex, distributed, synchronising system. The natural
place to require proof-of-work is in the process of (certification)
signature generation, but that's an OpenPGP issue...
A
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, (continued)
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Valentin Sundermann, 2016/05/25
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Christian Felsing, 2016/05/25
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Robert J. Hansen, 2016/05/25
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Pascal Levasseur, 2016/05/26
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Moritz Wirth, 2016/05/26
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Robert J. Hansen, 2016/05/26
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Martin Papik, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Pascal Levasseur, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Kim Minh Kaplan, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!,
Andrew Gallagher <=
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Andrew Gallagher, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Gunnar Wolf, 2016/05/27
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, Robert J. Hansen, 2016/05/27