These would be mostly or entirely disjoint sets, no?  I'm not sure what the one statement really says about the other.


Seccomp is in the linux kernel largely because of CPUShare and related projects.  You are correct that none were largely "successful" in the sense that none have gained broad mass-market adoption.  There were many attempts of various sorts.  None survived, unless you count Globus style initiatives, and I don't.

As far as I can tell, you have not presented solutions to any of the "old problems" that kept these sorts of projects from taking off in the past.  Your model actually seems largely reiterative of them, with the exception of the introduction of crypto for payment. (Though CPUShare markets did use escrow models to achieve the same goals.)

Your model seems to suffer from all of the same problems of lacking convenience, security and data privacy, authentication, rich service discovery, and adaptability.

How does this really intend to compete with the "semi-private" overflow trade commonly practiced by this market already?  How are you going to take market share from this without some advantage, and with so many potential disadvantages?


Huh?  Who said anything about anyone being just like everyone else?