Adding hash pow to messages as non-spam signal #40
Closed
FreeTrade
started this conversation in
FIP Stage 1: Ideas
Replies: 2 comments
-
Yes, I agree with that concern - the first step we've taken is limiting the amount of data each user can store by implementing pruned sets. This reduces the total storage requirement but does not solve the general network traffic problem of having a lot of messages. @CassOnMars has suggested using VDFs in the past, I like that approach since it aligns more closely with what we want to ensure. we might consider such a design for the 2.1 release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Seems like there is a danger that the system will be overwhelmed by spam/flood messages if they are free to produce. This may give rise to centralization problems as seen with e-mail where a small number of hubs (like gmail, outlook) decide for the whole network what is allowed and which hubs are legit.
Another solution to spam/flooding might be to require each message to have a minimum amount of hashing done on the message as a signal the message is costly ( see hashcash by Adam Back) - I would suggest a CPU friendly hashing algo, RandomX maybe.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions