as someone that used to run email servers for many companies, i truly do understand that. it became easier to use a trusted mail solution, centralizing your mail, than keeping up with fighting spam. but this also highlights my point that giving up isn't always the answer.

Trust a central authority over imposing economic costs to individual actors is what I would call giving up. Let's just let the fed issue dollars because gold is too hard to move around.

Email isn't money.

Looking pretty decentralized to me... Are you referring to the fact that in the US, most users use Gmail, Apple, and Yahoo? Well, that is because they are not spamming their users. Since email users care about using email to send and receiving emails, they look the other way on big tech spying on them, which is another problem, but the moment "Gmail core" starts spamming their users inboxes, you can be sure they are going to move to one of the other ten gazillion email services out there. I think you are getting it backwards.

I have to agree with Jameson here. Running your own email server is still pretty easy from a technical standpoint. The difficulty comes in managing black and white lists for your IP addresses constantly because somebody sent spam once and got on one or off the other.

So then, why would you ignore him this time?

So, a gigantic change that BREAKS an enormous amount of social consensus is worth it, even though it will cost more for the attacker to use than just jamming things into witness. Your argument is pretty shitty, sir.

Naah, botnets would still have won. Remember how bad security was in those days: you could have many, many CPUs quite easily.