Re: Micropayments, redux

[Pete Chown]

David Wagner wrote:

Yes, but the probability of it being significantly worse than I claimed
(i.e., by more than a factor t) is exponentially small (in t).  One can
easily calculate concretely exactly what the risk curve looks like.
I'll spare everyone the details and just say that I see no reason why
this should be a showstopper in practice.

Actually I think it may be a showstopper in practice for rather different reasons -- people's behaviour when exposed to risks is rather odd. The British lottery, for example, pays on average £0.50 for each £1 ticket. No one would buy a 50p piece for £1, but people will buy an expected win of 50p for £1. People worry more about their children being the victim of a paedophile than getting run down by a car. People worry more about the tiny risk from the measles vaccine (if it is a risk at all) than about the risk of dying in a measles epidemic.

I don't know which way the psychology would work in this case. Would people be put off buying content by the small chance of paying a high price? Alternatively, would they enjoy the gamble, and the fact that most of the time they would get content free? I think it may be the former, because the protocol is like the lottery in reverse. The lottery promises you a small chance of a big win. This micropayment scheme gives you the small chance of a relatively big loss.

There is also the risk that the system could be classed as an illegal lottery in some jurisdictions.

--
Pete


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]