>>
> I wonder if a better way forward is to focus on tools (e.g., a petname
> system in Tor Browser) to automate dealing with onion addresses rather
> than making them easier to deal with for humans.
I worked on implementing the X.500 Directory Project which had similar goals
for e-mail addresse
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 11:36:35AM +, Alec Muffett wrote:
> 1) it’s all very well to go an mine something like “facebookcorewwwi”
> as an onion address, but 16 characters probably already exceeds human
> ability for easy string comparison.
I wonder if a better way forward is to focus on tools
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 11:36:35AM +, Alec Muffett wrote:
>> 5) taking a cue from World War Two cryptography, breaking this into banks of
>> five characters which provide the eyeball a point upon which to rest, might
>> help:
>>
>>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:00:27AM -0700, Damian Johnson wrote:
> Hi Philipp, sorry about the delay! Spread pretty thin right now. Would you
> mind discussing more about the use cases, and give a mockup for what this
> new domain specific language would look like in practice?
>
> My first thought
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 at 13:29 Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Can I make my usual radical suggestion? By all means discuss, but once
> you've finished deciding what you think is best for humans, please actually
> test your theory. On humans (and that mean
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Can I make my usual radical suggestion? By all means discuss, but once you've
> finished deciding what you think is best for humans, please actually test
> your theory. On humans (and that means, not CS students and not Mechanical
> Turk).
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 at 13:12 Alec Muffett wrote:
> Hence this email, in the hope of kicking off a discussion between people
> who care about human factors. :-)
>
Can I make my usual radical suggestion? By all means discuss, but once
you've finished deciding what you think is best for humans, ple
On Sun, 2015-08-09 at 07:26 +, Jeremy Rand wrote:
> > Isn't the 51% attack down to a 20ish% attack now?
>
> The estimate I did was based on Namecoin hashrate, not Bitcoin
> hashrate. I assume that's the distinction you're referring to, though
> you're not really making it clear.
No. I haven
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/09/2015 06:54 AM, Jeff Burdges wrote:
>
>> I did a rough calculation about a year ago of how much it would
>> cost to buy ASIC miners that could 51%-attack Namecoin, and it
>> came out to just under a billion USD.
>
> Isn't the 51% attack dow
