Re: [Blocks-development] crazy anti-flooding idea:

[Blat F. <pet...@ho...>]

>From: "Spencer Jr., Michael" <sp...@ac...>
>To: blo...@li...
>Subject: [Blocks-development] crazy anti-flooding idea:
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:37:10 -0500
>
>CPU-bind the Eve clients!  ^_^
>
>Is there some kind of cryptographic function we can require to be used with
>all broadcast messages passed, which is difficult to create (perhaps ~5
>seconds of P3-500's processing to encode) but not difficult to decode?
>
>Could this be reversed, so someone could create a large number of packets
>that are more difficult to decode than to encode (even though they'd all be
>bogus packets) so they'd CPU-bind the good client instead?
>
>Do we want to require encoding only for people who originate the packets,
>where packet routers just pass the data along?  Or should all broadcast 
>data
>(which should be protected in a special way) be encoded every time it gets
>routed?
>
>What do you guys think?

I think the CPU requirement would kill the Blocknet. If this is
designed to limit spam, then it would also limit normal throughput,
and in 6 months time some script kiddie with a hacked server farm, beowulf 
cluster, or with the latest $$$ box would be able to
out perform the Blocknet. Also, for sending broadcast messages
we would have to choose a func which was tragetted at taking 5
mins for 16 connections. A spammer would simply send it only
to one connection in order to flood faster... you can go on and on
with this.

Good but of brainstorming, but I dont think this ones got much
legs. :-)

ttfn

PG.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com