{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Yaacov Akiba Slama [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Yaacov Akiba Slama [ARCHIVE] (npub1z0…at6uz)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1z07sgdx84scq77jx3fddj3jt0w2w3vpa0t5gyk0nmcaggs3gyt7s6at6uz","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2019-11-07\n📝 Original message:\nOn 07/11/2019 16:43, Joost Jager wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:36 PM lisa neigut \u003cniftynei at gmail.com \n\u003e \u003cmailto:niftynei at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e     \u003e Imagine the following setup: a network of nodes that trust each\n\u003e     other\n\u003e\n\u003e     The goal of this pre-payment proposal is to remove the need for\n\u003e     trusted parties\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Trust isn't the right word. It is a level of service that you provide \n\u003e to your peers. If nodes are cognizant of the fact that the level of \n\u003e service they receive goes down if they forward spam, they will be \n\u003e careful on the incoming side. Require peers to build up a reputation \n\u003e before increasing the inbound limits that apply to the channels with them.\nWe can learn from the current situation in emails, that a system based \non reputation tends to concentrate the power in the hands of few big and \nstrong actors (gmail and co). If we have from the beginning a mechanism \nto fight against spam by paying to send message, we can perhaps have a \nreally distributed system which cannot be censured."}