snow@smoke.suba.com said:
Well, I was thinking, what if a "Crypto Software Bounty Server" were set up, so that someone could propose a tool that they would like to see, along with an initial bounty. Others could contribute toward that bounty (anonymously if they wish) until either the tool was delivered. The original issuer sets standards for the software (i.e. "easy to use interface to mixmaster remailers for Macintosh", then must define easy to use; Software considered delivered when in [alpha beta late-beta &etc.]). The first to present software meeting these qualifications gets the bounty, with the caviate that the software must be either gnu-copylefted, or some similar "free use" copyright, after all, "The Net" paid for it...
Hmmm. This is a one shot game (is that the term?) whereas software
Correct term, but not necessarily accurate.
generally has implications that escape a single sale scenario. For example, the more difficult the software, the more risk there is that someone else will beat you, thus lowering the real risk-adjusted payoff dramatically. For this reason, more complex stuff would need some sort of contract+reputation scenario that allows a repeating game to work.
Not necessarily. It could be set up to keep the Bounty open, to provide a revenue stream for upgrades, or second, third & etc. bounties for upgrades bug fixes and new features.
A contractual alternative could work like this. I (the initial desirer) write a contract specifying my requirements. I publish this as a market tender, where other desirers can contribute funds, and this becomes a
<snip>
eliminates the need for judges. History shows that a good market microstructure will beat an authority approach in the long run.
Reputation could also eleminate the need for judges. If Matt Blaze, or Randall S. were to try to claim a specific bounty, people would be more likely to accept their claim than if I were to do so.
Also note that if you drop the free software assumption, and make it, say, moneyware, then the market becomes much more workable - the asset being traded is a share of future revenues. This has more ramifications than might be obvious: Propose a market to write a GAK killer for e$10,000. If it clears and is built, is the Dept. of Justice forced to buy the rights out?
If it is GNU'd, then there is no one to buy out. I like the idea of "free" software. As it stands now, there is a lot of very high quality software free software out there (hell, all of the software I use _daily_ is "free" software), and if no one owns it, the government can't use copyright laws to restrict it. The feds _can't_ buy it out for a million dollars. The other thing about the "bounty server" is that it is simpler to set up (at least as far as I can see) than your contract model. All you would need is to settle up the details, set up a web server with the ability to handle ecash, and some sort of accounting and you are off. Maybe, just to prove you are legit, a performance bond. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com