[cap-talk] Capability accounting - meta

[Jed at Webstart]

Cap-talk,

I believe I've read through this "Capability accounting" thread to this point:

>At 02:06 PM 6/26/2006, Norman Hardy wrote:
>
>On Jun 26, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Sandro Magi wrote:
> > ...
>
> > Let's suppose that I've been enjoying the NY Times comics at 3c for
> > some time...
> >
> > You could argue that such practices drive away customers, and I would
> > agree ("buyer beware"); I just want to be aware of exactly what I'm
> > vulnerable to in such scenarios.
>
>I think we agree.

To my thinking there has been a significant divergence from the 
original topic of "Capability accounting" as I try to address by 
responding to Sandro's message below:

At 05:15 PM 6/25/2006, Sandro Magi wrote:
>Norman Hardy wrote:
> > I agree with all your points. Agents for some situations are easy
> > however.
> > I can instruct an agent in my browser to pay up to 1 cent for any
> > link that I explicitly click on but 10 cents for any NY Times page I
> > select.
> > Other demands by web servers will require my explicit attention.
>
>I think the problem, is that metered resources like water and
>electricity have:
>
>1. sufficiently course-grained controls, power switches and faucets, so
>the user can mentally track/estimate how much these resources were
>actually used (should he so choose).
>
>2. sufficiently stable, or at least slowly-varying, prices (so there's
>no shocking "surprise" after the fact).
>
>3. sufficient confidence in the metering equipment (such that they would
>rarely dispute the results).
>
>Software is clearly lacking in #3, but since we're dealing with "ideal",
>capability-based software, we'll assume this is handled to our
>satisfaction. :-)
>
>#2 is problematic, as 10c links on one site could 20c links, or $100
>links elsewhere. This price variability must be explicitly programmed or
>configured each time, should you decide for "metered" user interaction.
>Managing all this information strikes me as quite a burden, though I'm
>open to suggestions.
>
>#1 is a real problem with today's software. AJAX architectures
>(potentially) don't fit into the web model you presented. If the browser
>is loading data incrementally or dynamically, or in such a fashion that
>the user is not aware of the background data transfers, he can be
>charged in ways he's not aware of. This interaction is sufficiently
>complicated that I can't see it being automated via agents with any
>degree of confidence.
>
>But perhaps I've misunderstood your user interaction model.

Perhaps I don't understand the issue that's being addressed at this 
time.  I guess it's the model of the Digital Silk Road, micro 
payments and such, and not general capability accounting any longer?

I believe the existing sorts of accounting available on scientific 
computing systems satisfy all three criteria above.  I also believe 
the sorts of "accounts" on PayPal satisfy the above criteria.  What 
they both (and probably other working models) lack for clear reasons 
is any sort of communicable authority tokens for "accounts".

I believe that, except for the micro cost issues, the issue of 
"capability accounting" and that of accounting and payment in general 
for information technology resources are largely independent.

Perhaps we just need a new name (subject) for the thread?  I don't 
particularly mind it diverging from the "capability" focus of this 
list (is there a more speculative "IT economics"
list?), but it does seem to me to have significantly moved from a 
capability centric topic.

I believe the existence of systems like PayPal argue that an IT 
"account" model can work in the general Internet world.  The relevant 
question for me is whether any sort of "capability" mechanism (with a 
communicable authority token for an account) makes sense, adds value, can work.

I'd be interested to know if others feel this question (pick parts if 
you like) is:

1.  Obviously true (why?),

2.  Obviously false (why?),

3.  Unknown or difficult to know (why?),

4.  Other (what?), including not worth commenting on (will be obvious...).

--Jed http://www.webstart.com/jed/