German ct magazine postulates death of pgp encryption

Ingo Klöcker kloecker at
Mon Mar 2 00:13:07 CET 2015

On Sunday 01 March 2015 23:43:25 Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 01.03.2015 um 23:25 schrieb Ingo Klöcker <kloecker at>:
> > And most spam is sent by bots. The spammers don't really care how much
> > energy the bots burn. Yes, the amount of spam might decrease because
> > the bots cannot hammer out that many bitmessages as SMTP messages per
> > second, but your hypothesis that BitMessage would get rid of spam is
> > unrealistic.
> I don't really agree with that. The goal is that the proof of work for a
> single message takes 4 minutes.

On what kind of hardware? A high-end gamer PC? Or a low end mobile phone?

> At that rate, sending spam really is not
> profitable. In 4 minutes, spammers can currently send hundreds of
> thousands of mails. At that rate, they can afford to send it to every
> address they can find. With only one mail per machine every 4 minutes,
> they really need to be careful where to send it. Let's assume they have
> 10000 machines (which is unrealistic - most machines are behind a dialup
> connection from which no provider will accept mail).

There are much larger bot nets, e.g the ramnit bot net apparently controlled 
3.2 million (!) machines (see, in German). And with 
regard to providers not accepting those mails you seem to be missing that the 
bots simply (ab)use the mail accounts of the bot owners.

> That's only 2500
> mails a minute. If global spam were just 2500 spam messages a minute,
> spam would hardly be a problem.

Of course, 800,000 spam messages per minute is still many magnitudes less than 

I don't see BitMessage killing spam. But it will surely kill mailing lists.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150302/c37be73b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list