This idea is fundamentally flawed because mining is ultimately a zero-sum game. If this approach became commonplace as the author suggests, it would greatly increase the number of publishers squabbling over much smaller pieces of the pie.
In any case, you're effectively paying for the mining on your power bill. So nevermind that this approach disadvantages users who pay higher rates for electricity or have older, less-power-efficient computers.
the environmental and social impacts of mining at large scale have to be considered. it just does not seem wise to spend so much electricity and CO2 for mining.
I think it is not a bad idea, imagine the mining is taking place only when the page is active and (max) 5 - 10$ on your electricity bill split among all the publisher, a much better alternative to ads if you ask me.
When I pay in cash (digital or otherwise), I know what I give out in terms of value for goods or services. This concept of renting out your computer time on the other hand is vague. How much 'currency' will be mined? Will it be proportional to the goods/services I get to use in exchange? How long will the process take? What if my system fails midway during 'payment'? Can this concept be extended to run arbitrary code in your browser in exchange for the service? Right now Javascript is at least nominally related to the page you access. But what if tomorrow the code you're asked to execute is totally unconnected with the service being offered?
This just smacks of convenience for the implementers and as for the user, it exchanges a straightforward system for a murky deal.
>When I pay in cash (digital or otherwise), I know what I give out in terms of value for goods or services. This concept of renting out your computer time on the other hand is vague.
When you watch ads and get data-mined do your really now how much value you pay? I don't think so, it's safe to safe that all of us have no clue about the price we indirectly pay for services we on internet, most of it is just free in appearance.
>How much 'currency' will be mined? Will it be proportional to the goods/services I get to use in exchange? How long will the process take? What if my system fails midway during 'payment'?
The norms are not established yet since it's a totally new way to monetize content on internet however how much you will pay will probably be determined in hashes.
Here an example with a new blockchain (Nimiq) of a micropayment you could do: http://coinmiq.com/mine/eyJ3YWxsZXQiOiJOUTI3IFJDNUIgOUU1QSBT...
>This just smacks of convenience for the implementers and as for the user, it exchanges a straightforward system for a murky deal.
I disagree, in my opinion it opens an entire new way to do micropayments on the web.
Actually that's what I like about the idea. Reading prices, considering value of the things I buy in relation to those prices, picking most worthy alternative is a job that is assigned to every consumer by free market. I find it bothersome and after two decades or so of being consumer it is boring for me. Just saying "pay this guy whatever" without the fear of being taken to the cleaners sounds very attractive to me.
Opting in to in-browser mining is either stupid or theft. CPU mining costs more in electricity than you get out in currency. If you pay for your own electricity, you'd be better off donating directly. If you don't pay for your own electricity, you're donating electricity from whoever is paying for that electricity. This may or may not be theft, but is definitely morally dubious.
> If you pay for your own electricity, you'd be better off donating directly.
But to donate directly, you'd need a common payment service. That means registering (password and two-factor), then either transferring money to your account or authorizing it to draw from your bank account, and finally sending the payment, probably revealing a fair few bit of information about yourself to a website you may like but not necessarily trust. And every step of that process can be hacked, or have connection problems, or you may be on a different computer and need to re-login, and so on.
Paying with electricity lets you skip all that, and HN should be well aware that convenience is worth a lot of money.
In addition to that, with money you must choose how much to donate, and that is a burden on its own. (Does this blogger deserve one buck, or two? I gave two to that article last week, and this dude is almost as good, but I've decided my weekly budget is X €, and I'm almost over it, etc. etc.)
With a JS miner, you pay exactly as long as you keep the tab open, which is a pretty good proxy for how much the page is personally valuable to you.
> CPU mining costs more in electricity than you get out in currency.
This is a huge assumption that you are making no attempt to back up.
Without specifying what currency is being mined or the rate of earning it per kw/h you have no way of determining the relative value of those two things.
Lots of people pay their own electricity but can't pay directly for online content.
Especially in the third world, people often don't have credit cards or bank accounts. When they do, transaction costs make microtransactions inefficient.
What's morally dubious is you telling me what I can and can't do with my own computer and my own electricity that I pay for. I'm a grown adult and don't need people like you calling me stupid. I've had enough of this kind of moral proselytizing, thankyou very much.
If browser mining was a good deal for the end user the vast majority of its proponents wouldn't feel the need for stealth. As it is implemented currently It's yet another example of preaditory behaviour killing herbivores at the digtal watering hole.
If browser mining was a good deal for the end user the vast majority of its proponents wouldn't feel the need for stealth.
Paul Graham might disagree;
"The two most important things to understand about startup investing, as a business, are (1) that effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and (2) that the best ideas look initially like bad ideas." (emphasis mine) [From http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html]
Stealth is not necessarily a sign something is bad; it might just be hard to persuade people that it's good, and that's a reason to be stealthy.
I totally agree that the way it's implemented currently is awful however don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, it's a new way to transmit very very small amount of values.
What if my electricity comes from solar or nuclear power? Have you ever taken a commercial air flight? Please, no. Stop doing that already. Your carbon footprint is too high.
So I guess I'm clearly in favor of it. In general I would prefer opt-in mining to advertising. If you are interested in why, I'll be happy to discuss. I think my thoughts are laid out in the README.
It won't mine unless you ask it to. The point of the demo is to check out what impact various degrees of mining have on your other activities. The default is VERY low with a single thread and 50% throttle.
I'm not sure if this is a polarizing topic, or if I'm not thinking clearly about it because I've gotten on the boat, drunk the kool-aid, or whatever.
When we look at conventional money, (specifically the USD,) "printing" money is available to almost everyone with decent credit. We print money when we use credit cards and when we take out a mortgage on a home.
If websites took small payments in a cryptocurrency where mining the cryptocurrency took about the same amount of time as it takes to consume the content, then "printing" money is available to almost anyone with a decent device. It's also a good way to set a price for content; instead of some bozo thinking that his/her article is worth $3 or $15.
I think that cryptocurrency, as a technology, still has far to go before it can support this kind of commerce. This is in terms of technological improvement, scalability, and a design that takes into account how economics works on a large scale.
HN of all places really surprised me with this reaction. Publishers _desperately_ need an alternative payment system with the convenience of an ad-supported model, microtransactions, and a direct payer-payee relationship. Browser-based mining has a potential to provide that, but it is still very early and evolving.
Also why is everyone talking about Bitcoin in this thread? No one is trying to mine Bitcoin in the browser. There are other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Some of those are designed to run in the browser specifically to address the concern with using a POW system in an intentionally resource-constrained environment.
It seems they have opted to prefer browser miners and botnets over centralization caused by dedicated hardware (ASICs).
Profitibility in the traditional sense factors in electricity, but when you're using someone else's electricity, that's not a consideration. If you have enough users, the return is quite reasonable for the site owner.
Is this for real? There is no justification. It’s theft plain and simple. Nothing has gotten me to turn on NoScript by default but if this becomes commonplace I will.
I know the author is doing opt-in mining but that’s obviously going to be as popular as opt-in ad tracking vs automatic. The model will be pages just serve up the in browser mining without asking.
I would say that opt-in could see some success if used in place of paywalls, etc. Sure, not many people are going to opt-in to "please give me some money, I work hard", but if the New York Times said, this article is for subscribers, but you can read it if you'll mine for me while doing so.
I think the best use case is would be for non-profit that depend on donations like Wikipedia or perhaps video streaming websites like Youtube(consumed using Desktop).
[+] [-] blocksceptic|8 years ago|reply
In any case, you're effectively paying for the mining on your power bill. So nevermind that this approach disadvantages users who pay higher rates for electricity or have older, less-power-efficient computers.
[+] [-] jonfor98|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mido22|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Santosh83|8 years ago|reply
This just smacks of convenience for the implementers and as for the user, it exchanges a straightforward system for a murky deal.
[+] [-] okxyd|8 years ago|reply
When you watch ads and get data-mined do your really now how much value you pay? I don't think so, it's safe to safe that all of us have no clue about the price we indirectly pay for services we on internet, most of it is just free in appearance.
>How much 'currency' will be mined? Will it be proportional to the goods/services I get to use in exchange? How long will the process take? What if my system fails midway during 'payment'?
The norms are not established yet since it's a totally new way to monetize content on internet however how much you will pay will probably be determined in hashes. Here an example with a new blockchain (Nimiq) of a micropayment you could do: http://coinmiq.com/mine/eyJ3YWxsZXQiOiJOUTI3IFJDNUIgOUU1QSBT...
>This just smacks of convenience for the implementers and as for the user, it exchanges a straightforward system for a murky deal.
I disagree, in my opinion it opens an entire new way to do micropayments on the web.
[+] [-] scotty79|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philipodonnell|8 years ago|reply
You call the current ad-funded 'you get the service free but we secretly monetize everything about you' a straight-forward system?
This seems way more direct to me. Want to consume content? Run code in your browser while you do so.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piaste|8 years ago|reply
But to donate directly, you'd need a common payment service. That means registering (password and two-factor), then either transferring money to your account or authorizing it to draw from your bank account, and finally sending the payment, probably revealing a fair few bit of information about yourself to a website you may like but not necessarily trust. And every step of that process can be hacked, or have connection problems, or you may be on a different computer and need to re-login, and so on.
Paying with electricity lets you skip all that, and HN should be well aware that convenience is worth a lot of money.
In addition to that, with money you must choose how much to donate, and that is a burden on its own. (Does this blogger deserve one buck, or two? I gave two to that article last week, and this dude is almost as good, but I've decided my weekly budget is X €, and I'm almost over it, etc. etc.)
With a JS miner, you pay exactly as long as you keep the tab open, which is a pretty good proxy for how much the page is personally valuable to you.
[+] [-] philipodonnell|8 years ago|reply
This is a huge assumption that you are making no attempt to back up.
Without specifying what currency is being mined or the rate of earning it per kw/h you have no way of determining the relative value of those two things.
[+] [-] saint_fiasco|8 years ago|reply
Especially in the third world, people often don't have credit cards or bank accounts. When they do, transaction costs make microtransactions inefficient.
[+] [-] retrogradeorbit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OscarTheGrinch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|8 years ago|reply
Paul Graham might disagree;
"The two most important things to understand about startup investing, as a business, are (1) that effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and (2) that the best ideas look initially like bad ideas." (emphasis mine) [From http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html]
Stealth is not necessarily a sign something is bad; it might just be hard to persuade people that it's good, and that's a reason to be stealthy.
[+] [-] okxyd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddebernardy|8 years ago|reply
https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-mining-guzzles-energyand...
[+] [-] loverofthings|8 years ago|reply
I guess you could complain about the usefulness of mining.
Well, people do a bunch of useless stuff that has magnitudes bigger carbon footprint than mining.
Let's not optimize things that are insignificant.
[+] [-] philipodonnell|8 years ago|reply
2) Some of those cryptocurrencies have different proof of work algorithms
3) Some of those are designed specifically for browser-based mining and have nothing to do with Bitcoin's ASIC-optimized POW
[+] [-] retrogradeorbit|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...
[+] [-] trey-jones|8 years ago|reply
https://github.com/trey-jones/xmrwasp#a-word-about-responsib...
So I guess I'm clearly in favor of it. In general I would prefer opt-in mining to advertising. If you are interested in why, I'll be happy to discuss. I think my thoughts are laid out in the README.
I also made a simple demo page here:
https://www.xmrwasp.com
It won't mine unless you ask it to. The point of the demo is to check out what impact various degrees of mining have on your other activities. The default is VERY low with a single thread and 50% throttle.
I'm not sure if this is a polarizing topic, or if I'm not thinking clearly about it because I've gotten on the boat, drunk the kool-aid, or whatever.
[+] [-] gwbas1c|8 years ago|reply
If websites took small payments in a cryptocurrency where mining the cryptocurrency took about the same amount of time as it takes to consume the content, then "printing" money is available to almost anyone with a decent device. It's also a good way to set a price for content; instead of some bozo thinking that his/her article is worth $3 or $15.
I think that cryptocurrency, as a technology, still has far to go before it can support this kind of commerce. This is in terms of technological improvement, scalability, and a design that takes into account how economics works on a large scale.
[+] [-] philipodonnell|8 years ago|reply
Also why is everyone talking about Bitcoin in this thread? No one is trying to mine Bitcoin in the browser. There are other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Some of those are designed to run in the browser specifically to address the concern with using a POW system in an intentionally resource-constrained environment.
[+] [-] viach|8 years ago|reply
There is a GPU miner for Monero (actually, there is a GPU miner for everything) which turns in-browser mining into not that profitable idea.
[+] [-] trey-jones|8 years ago|reply
https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.ht...
It seems they have opted to prefer browser miners and botnets over centralization caused by dedicated hardware (ASICs).
Profitibility in the traditional sense factors in electricity, but when you're using someone else's electricity, that's not a consideration. If you have enough users, the return is quite reasonable for the site owner.
[+] [-] mxschumacher|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atticusberg|8 years ago|reply
Brave also controls what kind of advertisements you can see and prevents things like auto playing videos and full screen ads from cropping up.
It also allows you to apportion micro payments to content producers.
Won’t weigh in on whether this makes brave groundbreaking or not, but this is at least part of what it does that makes it unique.
It also has this whole interface it exposes to advertisers and content owners I don’t fully understand.
[+] [-] imron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|8 years ago|reply
I know the author is doing opt-in mining but that’s obviously going to be as popular as opt-in ad tracking vs automatic. The model will be pages just serve up the in browser mining without asking.
[+] [-] berkes|8 years ago|reply
I explicitly made a case for opt-in. How is that "theft"?
And whether or not that is popular is besides the case. If it is impopular, it still is not "theft", is it?
[+] [-] Traubenfuchs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trey-jones|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akkadak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afeezaziz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imtringued|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jxub|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] berkes|8 years ago|reply