[e2e] intelligent network design
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Dec 1 12:00:39 PST 2005
its different from charging (e.g. proof-of-work schemes like penny black) because
1/ the money does NOT go to the receiver
2/ the money _only_ goes if the participants fail to meet metcalfe's law.
(i.e. fail to increase the value of the net)
so the point is that it is a _tax_ on network stupidity.
the footnote in the message actually contains clues about a way you really might implement
the metcalfe control
p.s. for those of you from Kansas, let me assure you:
1/ of course, the network hasn't evolved, it was the product of intelligent design
and I am just proposing continuing that tradition (perhaps if you like, i want to play god
2/ luckily I dont do routing (and this is end2end) or I might have to talk about being touched
by the noodly tendrils of the flying spaghetti BGP code monster
In missive <20051201174219.GF24647 at hut.isi.edu>, Ted Faber typed:
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:13:35PM +0000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>> if you want to send a packet to my computer, or you want to an e-mail
>>> to my mail box, first of all you must send an xmas present to be held
>>> in escrow for later
>>> when i hear that the xmas present is safe somewhere in the north pole,
>>> then you will get notification of an address you can reach me at.
>>> If I then get a messaage that is interesting, useful or entertaining,
>>> the present will remain in escrow. If I (where I=3Danyrecipient)
>>> deem the message to be dangerous, boring, or dull, then I will inform
>>> santa to deliver the present to a needy person (of santa's choosing).
>>I'm assuming that by "a needy person" you mean "the recepient." It's
>>kind of a morally sticky position to put a receipent in for their
>>entertainment to literally be blocking charity from reaching needy
>>people. (It might encourage more people to adopt my nephew's position
>>that "everything is boring but PlayStation." Being charitable with
>>other's money is pretty easy.) It's an interesting idea, but incentives
>>are easier to grok when they're direct.
>>(A more facetious response might have included the complexities of
>>people who don't celebrate Christmas, have a religious or moral problem
>>with charity, etc. Fortunately, this is a completely serious message.)
>>The first place I heard of this idea (using the simpler, direct
>>incentives) was in Heinlein's _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_, though
>>there may be earlier references. In _Cat_ ringing the main character's
>>doorbell requires a $20 deposit for which the ringer gets a minute of
>>time. The $20 is (obviously) refundable at the owner's discretion.
>>It's the difference between "sender pays" and "sender pays *me*."
>>As far as shipping AIDS drugs out, especially today, I'm in favor.
>>http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.=
>>Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#=
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the end2end-interest