61–70 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.
Absolutely not. Wasting battery power to let somebody else buy into a pyramid scheme is not my idea of a solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. Wasting battery power to let somebody else buy into a pyramid scheme is not my idea of a solution.
It's a perfectly reasonable solution for those who are okay with it. You need to pay with something - either with your privacy, your attention, your money, or your electricity/idle CPU cycles. 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 y…
Cryptojacking will become more common the more legit websites use it as a source of revenue. And this specific company / team of developers have been doing very little to stop the malicious use of their javascript. Why support them?
EDIT: By "why support them" I obviously mean, why should a publisher support a team with such wanton disregard for security of the net that they depend on to publish their stuff. I won't read the articles. But their decision to use such a thing isn't a good one and I can criticize it.
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.
A coin being mined is controlled, handled entirely by first party, provides no incentive for tracking, etc.
This seems like a huge win.
Given the choice, I prefer a background miner over ads. Even on a laptop that's running on battery. For one thing, removing the ads (and all the annoying JS they load) should make the page much better to load & navigate, meaning I can go through the content faster. If I don't want to use up my battery, then I'll add the site to my Read Later list, and read it then.
Prime example of failed business models and their desperate attempts to survive. I'm really disappointed about how online publishers handle the decline of ad revenue. Of course my ad-blocker will also block your miner script, what do you think how this works? And better yet, integrating external third-party JavaScript into your website screams for abuse by attackers. Someone could just change the wallet address the s…
Every business is failed unless it figures out a way to survive. Businesses do not survive by default. It takes a lot of work and experimentation to find the right mix of everything to build a viable company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is being blocked as some other commenters showed. 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.
It did. The new consent based miner is on and served from authedmine.com
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are right. However, CoinHive seems to care about this (at least superficially). Check out their AuthedMiner.
>The team don’t specifically track domains, so if a user’s email address is not, for example, “contact@website.com,” Coinhive often don’t know where or how the service is being used, though.
So they don't keep track of who uses the software (perfect for malicious users), and yes they offer an AuthedMiner but why are they still offering payouts to people who use the version which runs without user consent?
It's like me selling illegal firearms in the back of my store and people saying "Hey, he is really concerned about the negative effects of illegal arms dealing, that's why he sells legal firearms in the front of the store!"
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)
Better to evolve a micropayments model that works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a perfectly reasonable solution for those who are okay with it. You need to pay with something - either with your privacy, your attention, your money, or your electricity/idle CPU cycles. 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 y…
It's not though because the effects on the rest of the web are negative. Cryptojacking will become more common the more legit websites use it as a source of revenue. And this specific company / team of developers have been doing very little to stop the malicious use of their javascript. Why support them? EDIT: By "why support them" I obviously mean, why should a publisher support a team with such wanton disregard for…