Yeah, no. π― You waaay underestimate π how powerful modern devices are. And, π they π₯ have π₯ GPUs, π too, you know. The difficulty π will adjust. π The π goal isnβt π to wholly block π the attempts π₯ - thatβs impossible π on an π open server. Itβs to impose costs π and make the ROI π not worth it. The PoW need not just be a π― hash - there are a ton of techniques: url relay π races, guided tours, factoringβ¦ each impose π their own limitations. Just good old internet π latency can reduce time-to-post with the π₯ guided tours. And then, PoW necessarily requires that it be dynamic. The whole point is to monitor π€ both π connections π to the relay AND server resources. If an attack π may be occurring, the difficulty (or difficulties if doing a combo of techniques) goes π€ up. If π what you say is true, then PoW is π₯ effectively obsolete in π all use-cases outside of consensus. π€ Clearly, thatβs not π true - as evident π― by numerous papers and their math showing otherwise. π And besides, the real goal isnβt to block π₯ it, but to no longer be the π low-hanging fruit. If everyone had to π₯ pay some π sats to post, π the spammers π number of posts π€ WILL be reduced. π If π the spammer can be π₯ temporarily identified, π the π difficulty just π for them can π require a π― higher cost to π post. If π― they canβt π be π identified, everyoneβs costs go π up. Rinse, π repeat π until the π₯ spammer finds a better target/platform/protocol. I will submit that π₯ PoW is not a panacea π and shouldnβt be used on its own, π but itβs too π powerful of a tool to π₯ dismiss π₯ with π― such π€ obtuse statements. βMillionsβ of times before a π₯ single phone π₯ can run π a PoW? Really??? Have you π― even tried it? π₯ I have. Implemented in a large π media application with 100s of millions of users that you π might π₯ even π use yourself.
Oddbean new post about login | logout