See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
Yes, this is a very old idea that resurfaced when javascript based crypto miners as an alternative to advertising became infamous.
Sending newsletters should cost something
11–20 of 70 posts
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#12You could eliminate a lot of complexity by first checking if the email itself is signed. If it is from someone you know then you are done. If it is not from someone you know (i.e. anonymous) you would then kick in some sort of external reputation system ... or not even bother, just add a bunch of spam points.
I think that sometimes we forget that we are almost always sending and receiving anonymous emails and how weird that is.
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#13It seems like the point of this is to reduce junk mail by forcing a financial cost to sending mail thereby causing the sender to really consider the content of their message before sending it—except there is a real cost associated with sending traditional mail and there is still a huge amount of garbage traditional mail sent out every day. Maybe I’m missing the point, though?
But mail is always priced at a fixed rate. What if your inbox worked on a bonding curve, such that as it filled up it became more expensive to send to (except for whitelisted addresses you approve)? What if your inbox required that the sender owned a particular NFT (proof of membership in a community)?
I mean there are infinite rules to play with in that sense. That's what excites me about crypto.
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#14It seems like the point of this is to reduce junk mail by forcing a financial cost to sending mail thereby causing the sender to really consider the content of their message before sending it—except there is a real cost associated with sending traditional mail and there is still a huge amount of garbage traditional mail sent out every day. Maybe I’m missing the point, though?
At the moment the cost of sending mail doesn't scale with the amount of mail you send. After spinning up a mail server the difference in cost between sending 1,000 and 10,000 emails is trivial.
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#15...while we're at it, if we are taxing senders why not also finally put a cost on metadata and user data e.g. by a fee that gets sent to a copyright collective... "little" basic income there we go ;)
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#16Honestly, I just want email, phone, ect, to only allow contacts from whitelists. (Kind of like how Facebook Messenger works.)
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#17Maybe I'm missing something, but why would any senders adopt this?
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#18It seems like the point of this is to reduce junk mail by forcing a financial cost to sending mail thereby causing the sender to really consider the content of their message before sending it—except there is a real cost associated with sending traditional mail and there is still a huge amount of garbage traditional mail sent out every day. Maybe I’m missing the point, though?
There is really not that much junk mail in the traditional mail, in my experience. Probably it varies place to place, but it's much MUCH less than what I get in my gmail.
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#19Not sure if its a good idea, Email servers get hacked daily, If you’re auto-sending payment to receiver , now there is an incentive for hackers , to spam themselves with your inbox and you pay out of your wallet for that. Now, yes one could say, that’s no problem just have a multi-wallet approval method , so unless the second one approves, it wont. But now that makes it a bit more complex, especially for newsletters…
Well in the mail you have to pay for the stamp. It's about a dollar. You could charge 10 cents...in fact, that's not a bad idea for a cryptocurrency.
Re: Sending newsletters should cost something
#20The weirdest thing about this proposal to me is that it picks the use case where the proposal is backwards. If someone is receiving a valuable newsletter they actually want to receive, the recipient ought to be paying for it. Senders would need to be paying for emails that people don't want.
If newsletter senders are paying to send out they're going to have to then have some sort of separate charging mechanism from the recipients to get them to compensate the sender.