On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:38, Seth <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
mathew <meta(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
- No system is acceptable if it allows me to say what I consider spam.
Any system that blocks "what you consider spam" requires telepathy.
Apple should patent their software telepathy then.
The easier it is to bypass a system, the less useful that system is.
The more this bypassing costs innocent victims (including incompetent
ones), the less useful that system is.
I disagree. I don't see that shielding the incompetent and unwise from the
cost of their ignorance and poor decisions is a necessary feature of all
systems.
- Systems like SMS where people are billed 10 cents a message are
economically impossible.
They obviously exist.
OK, so we can be done with the "it's economically impossible" canard?
- No system is acceptable unless it is usable by everyone on the
- Internet.
A system that can't be used by a significant fraction of those I
communicate with thereby lacks value to me.
So don't use it. Nobody has ever said that you personally will be required
to collect attention bonds, or that everyone will be required to. However,
it was objected that *I* shouldn't be able to collect them, because people
from countries with non-convertible currencies wouldn't be able to pay.
Hence the response that I don't communicate with anyone in such countries.
...and so on. Offering nothing positive, these naysayers shoot down
every proposal with the same tired objections that have been
addressed over and over and over as unreasonable or out of touch
with reality.
"Running code and rough concensus" You haven't provided the first,
why worry so much about the second?
If you have a working implementation, who cares about consensus?
mathew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg