On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:55:43 -0600
John Fenley <pontifier(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
But enough about that... Does anyone have a reason that my system
could not be used as a loose framework?
Quite a few actually, but that gets into questions of information
theory, protocol design, zero knowledge systems, etc that I'd much
rather point you at generally than spend my time explaining what so many
others have done so well.
Forget my bias against spam boxes. Assume it can be funded. Assume it
could be distributed in nature (cashes or something).
Those are neither cheap or easy assumptions. They are also rather
critical assumptions. Getting buy-in is not just fundamental, but is a
prerequisite for any proposal to be considered seriously.
Adding distribution to a protocol system is not just a matter of
sprinkling magic "distribute-this" pixie dust. Its hard work, and
frequently impossible without gutting the starting premises.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg