4 ms·

There's also ECache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache Very, very interesting stuff.

by daeken 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
The first party to create a universal micropayment system for the web that is really usable is going to make it very big imo. It would be a viable alternative to the ad supported model. Most websites operate on very small fractions of a cent per pageview, you would have to have an extremely low overhead to make it work. Say you pay a monthly subscription to the payment service provider, they then do all the bookkeeping based on a .js tag that is embedded on the page that you visit. If you don't have an account the .js redirects you to the signup page for the payments service provider, you register, pay your initial fee and continue to browse. You might even end up saving online newspapers in the process.
- zngtk4 17y ago
  I completely agree with you. I would easily spend 5 or 10 cents to read an interesting article, multiple times per day, especially a well written article from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
- apotheon 17y ago
  . . . which falls apart for people who don't allow JavaScript to execute in the browser. This would definitely impact some Websites more than others.
  - sho 17y ago
    The number of pepople who don't allow JS in the browser is vanishingly small and are probably (mostly) the paranoid type who wouldn't use an internet payment service anyway. IMO.
    - dtby 17y ago
      I think you are highly confused about the intersection of "people who don't allow random code execution on their machines" and "people who would like a secure micropayment service."
      - sho 17y ago
        I don't think I'm confused. I think perhaps many people who browse with JS deliberately turned off (for these reasons) misunderstand the multifaceted nature of security and place irrational weight on the fact that the JS is intended to execute on their machine. A remotely exploitable hole in JS is pretty much exactly the same as a hole in any other of the dozens of components of your browser. I would be much more worried about subtle holes in the myriad of closed-source media plugins you probably don't even know are there, and worse, can be loaded by ad networks. A much better point against JS would have been about XSS or similar. Yes, that's still a real risk, but incidents seem to be on the decline as it's become standard web developer practise to guard against it. And that's only ever a single-site vulnerability, not the local-machine arbitrary-code-execution exploit you seemed to allude to. But even if I am confused about all that, I'm certainly not wrong about the numbers - it's about 5% IIRC, and going down. JS is here to stay, is becoming a necessity on many sites, and everyone's just going to have to deal with that.
        dtby 17y ago
        I don't really think I'm confused. Not to put too fine a point on it, but "of course you don't." If you did, you would change your opinion. * I think the majority of people who browse with JS deliberately turned off are misinformed* Even if so, they are the same so-called 'paranoid' people to whom a secure (and hopefully anonymous) micropayment platform appeals. And even if I am confused about that I'm certainly not wrong about the numbers, they're minute. What is important is not absolute numbers. I reckon that school teachers comprise a minute portion of all web surfers. I doubt that Patrick would use this as a reason to exclude such from his Bingo Card Creator site. I consider myself to be super-paranoid and would welcome with open arms a proper cryptographically secure internet payment system. You would think that one could generalize this.
- wmf 17y ago
  This is called Contenture. http://www.contenture.com/ http://www.contenture.com/

There's also ECache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache Very, very interesting stuff.

by daeken 17y ago

There's also ECache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECache Very, very interesting stuff.

jacquesm 17y ago

The first party to create a universal micropayment system for the web that is really usable is going to make it very big imo. It would be a viable alternative to the ad supported model. Most websites operate on very small fractions of a cent per pageview, you would have to have an extremely low overhead to make it work. Say you pay a monthly subscription to the payment service provider, they then do all the bookkeeping based on a .js tag that is embedded on the page that you visit. If you don't have an account the .js redirects you to the signup page for the payments service provider, you register, pay your initial fee and continue to browse. You might even end up saving online newspapers in the process.

zngtk4 17y ago
I completely agree with you. I would easily spend 5 or 10 cents to read an interesting article, multiple times per day, especially a well written article from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
apotheon 17y ago
. . . which falls apart for people who don't allow JavaScript to execute in the browser. This would definitely impact some Websites more than others.
- sho 17y ago
  The number of pepople who don't allow JS in the browser is vanishingly small and are probably (mostly) the paranoid type who wouldn't use an internet payment service anyway. IMO.
  - dtby 17y ago
    I think you are highly confused about the intersection of "people who don't allow random code execution on their machines" and "people who would like a secure micropayment service."
    - sho 17y ago
      I don't think I'm confused. I think perhaps many people who browse with JS deliberately turned off (for these reasons) misunderstand the multifaceted nature of security and place irrational weight on the fact that the JS is intended to execute on their machine. A remotely exploitable hole in JS is pretty much exactly the same as a hole in any other of the dozens of components of your browser. I would be much more worried about subtle holes in the myriad of closed-source media plugins you probably don't even know are there, and worse, can be loaded by ad networks. A much better point against JS would have been about XSS or similar. Yes, that's still a real risk, but incidents seem to be on the decline as it's become standard web developer practise to guard against it. And that's only ever a single-site vulnerability, not the local-machine arbitrary-code-execution exploit you seemed to allude to. But even if I am confused about all that, I'm certainly not wrong about the numbers - it's about 5% IIRC, and going down. JS is here to stay, is becoming a necessity on many sites, and everyone's just going to have to deal with that.
      - dtby 17y ago
        I don't really think I'm confused. Not to put too fine a point on it, but "of course you don't." If you did, you would change your opinion. * I think the majority of people who browse with JS deliberately turned off are misinformed* Even if so, they are the same so-called 'paranoid' people to whom a secure (and hopefully anonymous) micropayment platform appeals. And even if I am confused about that I'm certainly not wrong about the numbers, they're minute. What is important is not absolute numbers. I reckon that school teachers comprise a minute portion of all web surfers. I doubt that Patrick would use this as a reason to exclude such from his Bingo Card Creator site. I consider myself to be super-paranoid and would welcome with open arms a proper cryptographically secure internet payment system. You would think that one could generalize this.
wmf 17y ago
This is called Contenture. http://www.contenture.com/ http://www.contenture.com/