41–50 of 112 posts
Isn't that a good thing? Imagine you have a little widget in your browser that displays something like '50%' which means you constantly use 50% of one core to mine a cryptocurrency for the page you are currently looking at. And in return you get an ad free web. I think that would be way better then the web as we know it.
So...doesn't this mean their website will start getting flagged as malware? Many security companies flag CoinHive as malware...
CoinHive provides two miners: one which runs without asking the user, and one which requires explicit consent from the user. The version requiring explicit consent is being used on the Salon website, and isn't currently being blocked by AdBlockers/malware detectors.
I think the company needs to shut down shop and provide their explicit consent miner under a different name because as long as anyone looking up your company's name can only ever find articles about your company providing malware, you won't be very successful.
Isn't that a good thing? Imagine you have a little widget in your browser that displays something like '50%' which means you constantly use 50% of one core to mine a cryptocurrency for the page you are currently looking at. And in return you get an ad free web. I think that would be way better then the web as we know it.
Seems wasteful & fruitless. Better to evolve a micropayments model that works (because at least i can quantify what I pay)
And the publishers can quantify how much it gets.
With the volatility of crypto assets this is not a viable solution for the publisher, especially because readers who have an ad-blocker installed are likely to block the mining script as well.
This is a publicity stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes, you'd think a media company would be smarter than to use a software that returns hundreds of articles about malware as the top results of a google search for its name.
Why would they care? They make money off of the ads, if you use an ad blocker, you just run up their server costs. Don't think they care.
I get that they are using the version which asks for consent, but why even take the risk of associating yourself with such a shady piece of software? If you make money of ads, you'd think you wouldn't want to do things that might scare away your users.
Isn't that a good thing? Imagine you have a little widget in your browser that displays something like '50%' which means you constantly use 50% of one core to mine a cryptocurrency for the page you are currently looking at. And in return you get an ad free web. I think that would be way better then the web as we know it.
Absolutely not. Wasting battery power to let somebody else buy into a pyramid scheme is not my idea of a solution.
Ad blockers eliminate paying with attention, and put a big squeeze on paying with privacy. Which makes the leftover choices of money or power quite reasonable.
What site uses the money or power for is nobody's business. Would you not pay journalists if you found out they like losing money on pyramid schemes?
Again mostly negative comments here. May I ask why? It's 100% opt-in so I don't really see what blocking mining scripts has to do with it. I also block mining scripts but that's for rogue sites doing it without my consent (The Pirate Bay) while this feels like a legitimate use-case. Correct me if I'm wrong. The headline makes it sound like they automatically start it if you're using an adblocker. That is not the case…
But in practice, we know that CoinHive is being used largely as malware, being injected in third-party sites to enrich hackers. And it's not a nice move to support that ecosystem and the company which clearly doesn't give two damns that their software is enabling so much hacking.
Again mostly negative comments here. May I ask why? It's 100% opt-in so I don't really see what blocking mining scripts has to do with it. I also block mining scripts but that's for rogue sites doing it without my consent (The Pirate Bay) while this feels like a legitimate use-case. Correct me if I'm wrong. The headline makes it sound like they automatically start it if you're using an adblocker. That is not the case…
Isn't that a good thing? Imagine you have a little widget in your browser that displays something like '50%' which means you constantly use 50% of one core to mine a cryptocurrency for the page you are currently looking at. And in return you get an ad free web. I think that would be way better then the web as we know it.
In theory yes, but in practice this software is a well-known malware. Not a good idea for any respctable site to be using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems wasteful & fruitless. Better to evolve a micropayments model that works (because at least i can quantify what I pay)
> because at least i can quantify what I pay And the publishers can quantify how much it gets. With the volatility of crypto assets this is not a viable solution for the publisher, especially because readers who have an ad-blocker installed are likely to block the mining script as well. This is a publicity stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again mostly negative comments here. May I ask why? It's 100% opt-in so I don't really see what blocking mining scripts has to do with it. I also block mining scripts but that's for rogue sites doing it without my consent (The Pirate Bay) while this feels like a legitimate use-case. Correct me if I'm wrong. The headline makes it sound like they automatically start it if you're using an adblocker. That is not the case…
In theory, it's a great idea being 100% opt-in and all. But in practice, we know that CoinHive is being used largely as malware, being injected in third-party sites to enrich hackers. And it's not a nice move to support that ecosystem and the company which clearly doesn't give two damns that their software is enabling so much hacking.