Re: [Asrg] (no subject)

ietf-asrg

Re: [Asrg] (no subject)

2004-04-29 22:29:12

Barry Shein wrote:

Atomic multi-record updates? How about just a log which is processed
asynchronously? Why in the world would this have to be kept in perfect
sync in real-time?

Because it's the transfer of MONEY, Barry, which requires both exactnessand atomicity.


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: [Asrg] (no subject), (continued) RE: [Asrg] (no subject), Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: [Asrg] (no subject), Hallam-Baker, Phillip The end result of E-postage (was Re: [Asrg] (no subject) ), Alan DeKok RE: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein RE: [Asrg] (no subject), Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Roger B.A. Klorese Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein Re: [Asrg] (no subject), \"Roger B.A. Klorese \" Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Roger B.A. Klorese <= Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein Re: [Asrg] (no subject), \"Roger B.A. Klorese\" [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, John Levine Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Jonathan Morton Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, John Levine Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Jonathan Morton Re: [Asrg] 3 (Message Verification) - Viability of hashcash-based signatures (was: E-postage from first principles), Jonathan Morton [Asrg] Consent protocols - was E-postage, David Maxwell [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, John Levine [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, David Maxwell

Previous by Date:	[Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, John Levine
Next by Date:	RE: [Asrg] My take on e-postage, Tom Thomson
Previous by Thread:	Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein
Next by Thread:	Re: [Asrg] (no subject), Barry Shein
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]