Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
jb55 | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 it wouldn't. spammers can do pow better than normal clients
▲ ▼
marventus | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +3 
 How better? Better machines or what?
▲ ▼
jb55 | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 people writing spam bots are probably nerds with more computing resources than just a person on their phone
▲ ▼
marventus | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 True. That’s a pity then…
▲ ▼
negr0 | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Ojalá encontremos la manera adecuada y rápida de frenar ésto
▲ ▼
jgx | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 How about some initial sats payment that is automatically reimbursed if the relay operator does not decide to slash it? That would allow for much higher prepayment but come at low cost for honest users
▲ ▼
D'joey | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I think that was the so Sphinx chat model. You give up sats to join a group and send messages and if the chat room owner decided it was spam they could keep the sats.
▲ ▼
Jon | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Then you'd trust the good intentions of the host.
▲ ▼
jgx | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 yeah, but it is an opt-in model and these things can be handled on the social layer through reputation. Additionally, we are not talking about huge sums. A deposit of 5$ per user would already kill almost all spammers, the individual loss in a rug is low.
▲ ▼
Jon | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I guess so 🤷
▲ ▼
jgx | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 which is a perfectly viable model I think. It would even allow to make it free for honest users and very costly for dishonest ones. There's always the possibility of rugs by the relay operators, but that's the risk a user is taking.