[cap-talk] (no subject)

[ross mcginnis]

> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:50:23 -0800
> From: frantz at pwpconsult.com
> To: cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> Subject: Re: [cap-talk] (no subject)
>
> ross_mcginnis at hotmail.com (ross mcginnis) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 wrote:
>
>>2) don't care who, do care how many times used : cap + revoke mechanism perfectly fulfills this. eg:
>>movie ticket, bus tickets, night-club reentry stamp
>
> I would say the night-club reentry stamp is not in category 2, but
> in category 3 (or perhaps 4). The night-club owner wants to charge
> the cover charge to each person who enters. He does not want
> swapping of night-club reentry stamps between people on the street.
>
>>3) do care who, don't care how many times used : delegatable-with-probable-cost-cap fulfills with high
>>confidence- can fail due to cooperative conspriacy or people not enticed enough to collect the bond.
>>eg: lifelong-member-only clubs, spamless email addresses, etc.
>
> If the probable cost of delegating a night-club reentry stamp is
> greater than or equal to the cover charge, there probably won't be
> much delegation.
>
> Cheers - Bill
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oops, my mistake.  Yes, you're right.
Thanks for pointing this out.

ross
_________________________________________________________________
It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641&_t=762955845&_r=tig_OCT07&_m=EXT