What will happen is that politicians will see this as another reason to push for everyone having their ID associated with their Internet traffic.
Yes, because like or not that’s the only possible solution. If all traffic was required to be signed and the signatures were tied to an entity then you could refuse unsigned traffic and if signed traffic was causing problems you’d know who it was and have recourse.
I don’t like this solution but it’s the only way forward that I can see.
Unsigned traffic = drop. Signed traffic that becomes an annoyance = drop. If signed traffic becomes more than an annoyance then you know who to report to the authorities and even in Brazil there’s authorities.
PoW has the advantage of being anonymous but I don’t like it as solution for the simple fact that it uses more electricity. It’s just not a very green solution.
Yes, because like or not that’s the only possible solution. If all traffic was required to be signed and the signatures were tied to an entity then you could refuse unsigned traffic and if signed traffic was causing problems you’d know who it was and have recourse.
I don’t like this solution but it’s the only way forward that I can see.
How do you have more recourse countering a random third world IP vs a random third world person when both are outside your juridiction?
Unsigned traffic = drop. Signed traffic that becomes an annoyance = drop. If signed traffic becomes more than an annoyance then you know who to report to the authorities and even in Brazil there’s authorities.
is it? Someone mentioned proof of work being effective for Tor.
PoW has the advantage of being anonymous but I don’t like it as solution for the simple fact that it uses more electricity. It’s just not a very green solution.
it doesn’t have to be only meaningless computations. And even if it were, the cost is nothing compared to such a huge scale of privacy infringement