Dear David Barrett: This is basically just a "me too!" post to say that I'm really glad you're focussing on these criteria:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regardless, none of this really changes my core thesis, which is that > whatever solution built must: > > - Somehow become very popular and widely deployed *before* the event, > requiring substantial "added value" even when the internet is accessible. > > - Define "added value" in terms that the average person cares about, > which is *not* anonymity, security, privacy, etc. Rather, it needs to > be speed, convenience, reliability, and so on. I'm not sure that a freedom-compatible, resilient service can compete against the centralized, commercial ones on these criteria! Especially if you add a third requirement -- something about the people who build this having the time to do so and still being able to feed their families. But I hope so. I agree with you that they are very important criteria. Although I don't necessarily agree that users care nothing for anonymity, security, and privacy. Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
