From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:08:06 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
Message-ID: <199611170725.BAA03182@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Here we go again:

      There are is a lot of software that we would all like to see
developed and deployed right? 

      There are a lot of people out there who write code, sometimes 
even freely redistributable code, but they have to eat, and get their
net access right? 

     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...

     Some of the problems (and potential solutions) I can think of in this:

     1) Refusing to honor the contract--Maybe when a project is proposed,
        some other people (for a small percentage of the total) sign on
        as judges. When they feel that it reached the stated goal, then
        it is done. -Or- Money put up is non-refundable, and the bounty
        stays in the "bank" until claimed. 

     2) If the money stays in the bank until claimed, people might not 
        put up that much (or enough) to make a specific project worthwile--
      
        This could be solved by allowing the "bounty" to lapse in one 
        of 3 ways:

        A) <x> length of time after the initial proposal (bad because 
           i) someone could already be working on it; ii) bad because
           other people might add to the bounty, so a potential programmer
           might not start until the "pot" has grown to a certain level.

        B) <x> length of time after the last addition to the bounty,
           bad for both i & ii above. 

           These can both be gotten around (and other problems) by allowing
           programmers to "register" with the service that they are working 
           on a project (either anonymous registery, so that people will 
           still contribute to the project, or list those registered so 
           that people know [if who] someone is working on it)

     3) Funding: The server (in both the machine and the organizational sense)
        could be funded by:
 
        A) Interest on the money accumulated.
 
        B) A percentage of the bounty (say 10%) 

        C) Both A & B.  
  
Has anything like this been proposed before? I know that the FSF (IIRC) accepts
contributions, but I am thinking of something more targeted, more "market 
driven" if you will. 

This could be expanded to non-crypto software as well, just think, if half 
the X Window users ponied up $5 a peice for a "good, easy to use non-motif
word processor", how long do you think it would take for someone to start 
coding a MS Word killer? 
 
Comments?


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com