Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-25 Thread Major Variola (ret)
Steve's excellent analysis of how the Network Effect worked against Mojo indicates a social-fix for Mojo++, ie: make it easy to get on and get content. Ie, get them hooked. They'll at least be autosharing stuff they've downloaded. After they're hooked, folks may feel like contributing their

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-25 Thread Steve Schear
At 09:24 AM 11/25/2002 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Steve's excellent analysis of how the Network Effect worked against Mojo indicates a social-fix for Mojo++, ie: make it easy to get on and get content. Ie, get them hooked. They'll at least be autosharing stuff they've downloaded. Not

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Anonymous
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:59:43 -0800, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip We should get an anonymous micropayment system working, interconvertible to real money, or real e-gold, then apply it to such applications as mixmasters and darknet. Allegedly yodel is such a system, but yodel

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Steve Schear
At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. I was part of the team and I respectively disagree. Sorry to sound a bit like

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Morlock Elloi
Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. I think that there is a generic failure of systems that expect some pre-determined benevolence and cooperation from end users. Contrary to

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Neil Johnson
On Saturday 23 November 2002 11:32 pm, Steve Schear wrote: At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. I failed because it had

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Neil Johnson
On Saturday 23 November 2002 11:32 pm, Steve Schear wrote: At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. I failed because it had

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-23 Thread Steve Schear
At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. I was part of the team and I respectively disagree. Sorry to sound a bit like

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-22 Thread Major Variola (ret)
At 04:59 PM 11/21/02 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: -- According to Microsoft, http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Darknet is being undermined by free riders. They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal harassment of large sharers is possible. I suspect it is

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-22 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Darknet is being undermined by free riders. They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal harassment of large sharers is possible. I attribute this to lack of agoric load levelling, and prestige accounting. Legal harassment is

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-22 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote: Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced as service management mechanism. Mojo ultimatively failed because MojoNation failed. MNet is very alive, though, and it will

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-22 Thread Major Variola (ret)
At 04:59 PM 11/21/02 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: -- According to Microsoft, http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Darknet is being undermined by free riders. They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal harassment of large sharers is possible. I suspect it is

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-22 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Darknet is being undermined by free riders. They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal harassment of large sharers is possible. I attribute this to lack of agoric load levelling, and prestige accounting. Legal harassment is

Re: Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-21 Thread James A. Donald
-- According to Microsoft, http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc Darknet is being undermined by free riders. : : Peer-to-peer file sharing assumes that a : : significant fraction of users adhere to the : : somewhat post-capitalist idea of sacrificing their : :

Microsoft on Darknet

2002-11-19 Thread Nomen Nescio
Microsoft faces up to (and renames) BlackNet: http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman Microsoft Corporation[1]