[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!
From: |
Robert J. Hansen |
Subject: |
Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...! |
Date: |
Fri, 27 May 2016 11:02:02 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 |
> Please feel free to find the weaknesses in this suggestion !!!
Fine. Remember: you asked for it.
> Suppose we add a POW data to the PGP key data transaction request
>
> We can use the number of 0 in the 160-bit SHA-1 hash as the level of
> complexity indicator.
In *which* SHA-1 hash?
> The servers who receive a request from an user software to add a key can
> easily check the number of zero to find the level of POW and accept or
> not the request.
If you're talking about the key fingerprint, then this idea is stupid
because we already have millions of certificates which we need to
preserve, permit to be gossipped/uploaded/etc., without a Hashcash-like
POW idea.
Your idea is a "give up, nuke the entire GKN, and start over" idea. And
while I admire the purity of your notion -- honestly, I do -- if we're
going to start over, we can do so much better than this.
> The same mechanism can be used between servers for database reconciliation.
No, it can't. I'll let you think about this one a while.
- Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!, (continued)
- 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, 2016/05/27
- 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 <=