> sounds incredibly pretentious. I think most people would appreciate Plain English [0].
I can't speak for most people, but I didn't know what it meant, learned it after reading it, and found it quite appropriately funny and witty. I also learned a new word. There was nothing I found pretentious about it.
I think a helpful and reasonably objective criterion in deciding this might be whether the use of the phrase was (1) necessary to send the correct message, (2) required to understand the received message, and (3) liable to send an incorrect message. If #1 = no and #2 = yes, or if #3 = yes, then you should probably avoid using it. In this case it's #1 = no and #2 = no and #3 = no, so it's fine.
I think the standard solution for the mailing lists is the "subscription" email pays the hashcash, but has an automated way to whitelist the email upon receipt.
(Fully) Homomorphic Encryption is necessary for this. One of the paper's authors (Craig Gentry) is also the creator of FHE. To quote the paper:
>Using indistinguishability obfuscator for NC^1 together with any (leveled) fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) scheme with decryption in NC^1 (e.g. [Gen09b, BV11, BGV12, Bra12, GSW13])
Paper: http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/451.pdf
I have not read through the paper (yet, I plan to).
Yes, your tax dollars are funding this, but they are funding much worse. In terms of the useless: a friend ordered a $25,000 computer with 192 GB of RAM because he had a research grant for computer hardware that he had to use up. In terms of the horrifying: Extrajudicial murder of civilians.
If only because that would actually require the Senator to be able to actually understand the technology to a degree necessary to make a Wikipedia edit.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English