<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:08 AM, David Barbour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@gmail.com">dmbarbour@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Another feasible design is to use time-expiry caps... i.e. offering a capability to use Google's ticker for a period of time, with regular renewal from Acme. Acme would be free to cut off the expenditure at any time if a user is discovered to abuse it, and can use a small pool of caps for a larger group of users (using more than one cap allows them to quickly discover abusers, but avoiding one cap per user keeps the communications price down).<br>
<br>That's the approach I've been pondering for a related problem, anyway: in ocap-secured gaming, how do you ensure that players who obtain an ocap at one point - e.g. to listen to the audio feed for a region, or see the contents of a room - will lose that cap upon the avatar leaving the region? My thought was that the environment would regularly broadcast caps to avatars in the region, allowing the older caps to expire. This would reduce the incentive for 'cheating' because a cheating client could not maintain a cap without the cooperation of the broadcast source... but it would also have a relatively low overhead.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I'm curious how you know an avatar is "in the region" for this model?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ihab.awad@gmail.com" target="_blank">ihab.awad@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Attached is a PDF with my formulation of the problem.<br>
<br>
The core conclusion is that the distinction between the two approaches<br>
is a social one: do we want a model where everyone has one account at<br>
Google (and one of a small number of other centralized sites), and all<br>
mashups are just one-level layers on top of these centralized sites?<br>
Or do we envision a truly distributed web of cooperation?<br>
<br>
Ihab<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA<br>
</font><br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
cap-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org" target="_blank">cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk" target="_blank">http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>hubris and humility compose<br>perfectionism, paralysis, a curse<br><br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cap-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org">cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk" target="_blank">http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>