It's an interesting idea, and the paper is from 1997. That bodes well for it being patent free now.
In section 7 I think they touch on the possible third rail, legality. In the US it would probably require opinions by 50 lawyers to even get started, then you would still have to watch out for any of 50 States Attorneys General to take a swipe at your business.
I think back in 1997 the advertising model hadn't metastasized and people believed it could fund content.
I'm probably not typical, but I run a gentle ad blocker. (It blocks the ad networks, but if a site has ads embedded in their actual content, with bytes served from their site, which they are responsible for, then I see the ad.) If a site asks me to turn it off that's ok, I leave and put them on my mental "don't visit" list. If the site asked for $0.001 instead, I would always pay. If they asked for $0.01, I think I would always pay, if we are talking about a quality journalistic article.
Most people have sharp breaks below which they don't calculate; $0.01 would be below mine cause my time's surely at least ten times as valuable (haha) (even if two-thirds of my buys are duds.) I don't calculate whether to waste a sheet of paper writing down a note that might be useless, even though the cost is about 1 cent.
So there's really only one calculation, "should I just buy everything I'm likely to actually read right away?"
Given how mindlessly I click around the web going down rabbit holes I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour. It could easily start to add up.
But yeah, I'm a fifty tab guy, so I'd rather have the fee kick in if I'm on the page more than sixty seconds. That's fair. It would piss me off to pay even a cent for crap or subtle clickbait.
> I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour.
So you'd be entertained for an hour at the cost of $1. Seems like a good deal.
If you were to buy 40 new 300-page fiction books you could spend $400; if you were to buy 40 new professional books you could spend $1000.
> the paper is from 1997
The project's white paper mentions this paper.
When it first started I figured PayPal would have enabled microtransactions, but I gave up on that years ago. Venmo could, but it doesn't seem like that's the market they're focused on. Bitcoin would fill that niche, but it has a few other barriers.
Here's an example: https://github.com/hmel/bitcoin-raffle
Additionally, how does this deal with Proof-of-Stake algorithms? Ethereum is heading there, and as far as I am aware the blocks would no longer publish hashes.
Wasn't quite the break through success I suspected :)
There's a reasonable amount of tracking required to pass these tokens around (and I'm a little confused as to how you avoid 'double spending' of tokens). This is treated as cheaper than doing the transactions at the bank level.
Why are the bank level transactions expensive? What is it that means that moving tickets around is near free but electronic references to money not?
Whereever there is value there will be attempts at fraud, and on the internet you can automate them. Dealing with fraud inevitably requires a skilled human making decisions and dealing with complaints.
And after you've used up your $25, you could "refill" your account by depositing another $25.
I actually don't see what the big problem is.
In both cases the average IOU is worth 1 cent, and in both cases the issuer avoids handling very small amounts by only allowing redemption of IOUs worth at least $10.
The bottleneck here is the process of issuing these IOUs, which must be done by a trusted party in order to avoid the double spend problem.
Anything with enough randomness to cover your payout ratio would work. You could imagine taking a hash of your instance identifer concatenated with the NASDAQ final for the end date if you really don’t want to trust anyone.
I doubt Venmo could keep up with that level of transactions at 1¢ apiece.
Mining a cryptocurrency goes something like this: spend a ton of money investing in a state of the art server farm, hook server farm up to mining pool to earn Bitcoin, withdraw Bitcoin for money, spend money to upgrade your now obsolete server farm.
In addition to being needlessly inefficient, server farms are causing significant harms to the environment in ways that traditional currency does not, and is causing increases in electronics and electricity prices due to their high demand.
Proof-of-Stake is a way to solve this. Instead of computing power determining who creates the blocks (and earns the transaction fees/block rewards), and instead of miners spending Bitcoin to make Bitcoin, miners put their cyrptocurrency in a form of a lottery, with the winner writing the block without using any computing power. The result is the same, but much more efficient and without the environmental cons. It also may make the network more secure, since an attacker would need 51% of the wealth in the network in order to compromise it. And even if someone gained 51%, they would not attack the network because they have the most value to lose.
This article is also about using a lottery, but for a very different purpose. Microtransactions are difficult with current solutions, because vendors like PayPal, Visa, and Cryptocurrencies usually institute minimum fees. This system get around this system through the use of a lottery. As an example, instead of paying $1 to 10 different sites (say in a pay-per-view of newspaper articles), you pay with a reverse lottery ticket. This lottery ticket has a one in ten chance of winning, and if it does you have to pay $10. The resulting payment is the same, but all your payments are in large sums so that transaction fees are taken care of. If the newspaper receives 10 reverse lottery tickets, they will receive equivalent profits to charging each customer $1. Therefore, the customers pay the same and the sellers receive the same, but without transaction fees eating up nearly as large a percentage of the transaction that a micro transaction would.
Both systems use a lottery powered by blockchain randomness, but the similarities end there. The purposes and the meaning of the lotteries are completely different. In the case of the latter, it is actually a lottery you don't want to win.