Salon Magazine Mines Monero On Your Computer If You Use an Ad Blocker (bbc.com) 314
dryriver shares a report from BBC: News organizations have tried many novel ways to make readers pay -- but this idea is possibly the most audacious yet. If a reader chooses to block its advertising, U.S. publication Salon will use that person's computer to mine for Monero, a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin. Creating new tokens of a cryptocurrency typically requires complex calculations that use up a lot of computing power. Salon told readers: "We intend to use a small percentage of your spare processing power to contribute to the advancement of technological discovery, evolution and innovation." The site is making use of CoinHive, a controversial mining tool that was recently used in an attack involving government websites in the UK, U.S. and elsewhere. However, unlike that incident, where hackers took control of visitors' computers to mine cryptocurrency, Salon notifies users and requires them to agree before the tool begins mining.
And they prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads. Websites so far have refused any kind of responsibility for what happens to your computer as a direct result if visiting them without an adblocker installed.
So now Salon goes out of their way to use malware if you DO have an adblocker installed. You have to ask yourself what kind of shit is in their ads if that's their mentality. If they can get away with making a bit of money off a portion of their visitors, why not make it off ALL their visitors, adblocker or no?
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Informative)
People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads.
That's part of it for sure. However, it's not just that.
People (myself included) also use adblockers because they don't want a page they are reading plastered with annoying ads that jump at you every second. It's annoying. You know what I do when a website (usually some online publication, e.g. newspaper or magazine) tells me "you've got an ad blocker installed, please whitelist us to continue reading"? In 99% of the cases, I just leave that website. Most of the stuff I click just isn't THAT interesting to be worth being blasted by ads.
Which brings us to another point. These sites want to "make readers pay". The things is - readers don't want to pay for most of this content. They're happy to read it if it's free, but if it's not - they can live without it. Not wanting to pay includes not just not wanting to pay with their money - but also with their attention (ads blasting) and computing power (cryptocurrency mining). There's very little content out there that any particular reader is actually willing to pay for.
How will the poor websites fund themselves you ask? Well, it's their effin' problem that the advertising became way too aggressive and that the web became dominated at one point with websites which are 90% ads and 10% content. Not to mention all the malware and tracking and all of the other crap being "served" via the ads. Had the ads been less aggressive, ad blockers would not have proliferated. Even offline we are inundated with advertising, it goes way beyond just the businesses which fund themselves primarily via ads (e.g. free to air TV and in general media outlets), it looks like everyone is trying to make an extra buck by selling some space for an ad. Is it a wonder that people then massively say well screw you, I'm blocking this?
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Interesting)
News outlets have just no grasp of the reality of internet existing.
Seriously, I wanted to have some better news sources than the free papers they keep on train stations. So I paid over 200 bucks for a subscription, digital mind you, to Neue Zuercher Zeitung.
They still showed me ads and paid content even when logged in. My subscription has now run out. I see no difference in the content.
I mean what the hell?
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The easiest way to stanch this problem is to never surf to Salon.com. Problem solved.
When wired.com did their adblocker wall, I kissed them goodbye, and found out how my day improved.
I'll subscribe to content that I really need. But the madness and security danger poised by ads, not to mention their often dubious origin motivates me to use Privacy Badger and that plus no-script in another browser.
Publishers can tell me I suck. Fine. I'll go elsewhere. Publishing on the web has a lot of flawed models, and Salon.com just found another one.
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to subscribe to the paper version of Wired and let my subscription lapse. They sent me to a collection agency for failure to renew a $12 subscription! How is not renewing a subscription the same as buying something and not paying for it?
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Informative)
ADblockers do not block ads per se. They block scipts and elements of web pages. So Salon wants to be a dick, the adblockers will find the script and block it, good luck the morons at Salon. Can't run shit on a browser that is properly configured for example by https://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] runs fine on https://www.waterfoxproject.or... [waterfoxproject.org] (if you hate quantum and preferred the previous layouts easiest way to go.), excluding of course any browser out of M$, they control it and make no mistake and it will serve compulsory M$ ads, I waiting for the boot up ad, you now ad kicks in at boot and you have to interact with the add at the appropriate points for the next 10 minutes else the computer will complete the boot.
Re: (Score:2)
The Joe Rogan Experience has completely replaced Talk Shows for me. He actually lets people speak, isn't condescending, and has actual experts on his show.
TV and traditional media killed itself. And it's nobody's fault but their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean what the hell?
Because the newspaper model was predicated on a race to the bottom. At the turn of the 20th century, those in charge of newspapers just wanted the public to want them, much like how websites just want an audience now. They priced accordingly. A nickel, a dime, a quarter. That's what they thought people would pay for a paper at the time. But that was never enough to actually pay for the paper, let alone make a profit.
That model never changed.
That's the hell the newspapers find themselves in. Those in charge
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of it *is* shit that's not worth paying for; I suspect that they don't want to put the real price out there because they know it.
There are still some "reputable" news sources left - the big, big papers and all - that DO provide quality content, even if you know that the publisher of the paper may have some bias/ideological bent. You usually know what that ideological bias/bent is, since it's not like they try to hide it.
*Those* entities have managed to, in some cases, demand and get a "more" reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers are in the advertising business, not the content business. I kind of want to support my local newspaper with a subscription... but I don't want dead trees, ads, or annoying "teaser" rates. Give me a lifetime subscription to the website, ad-free... and I would be happy to pay a few hundred dollars as a *customer* and not as a pair of eyeballs with an income of $X, living in _, and interested in ___...
I used to subscribe to Salon way back when (2003 or so?) for ideological reasons. They changed s
Re: (Score:2)
Which other sites are included with your subscription to Neue Zuercher Zeitung? If someone shares the URL of an article with you, and the article is in a publication other than Neue Zuercher Zeitung, how do you respectfully phrase that you decline to read the article?
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear advertisers: if you are serious about improving the reader experience, think about how your ad impresses on a reader who is not interested in whatever it is you're selling. Good ads provide info to people who are interested in your products, entice people who might be interested, and are easily ignored by people who have no interest. Of course many advertisers seem to think that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and believe that the population of people who are not and will never be interested in the product is zero. The result of that thinking is the immense popularity of ad blockers, and declining readership of sites who successfully lock out people using such blockers. If people go out of their way to avoid looking at your ad, that should be telling you something...
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising is about selling you shit you don't need. Selling you shit you do need is easy, invasive advertising is only required to make you buy stuff you could live happily without.
The primary mechanism for making you buy shit you don't need is psychological abuse. Adverts make you feel inadequate because you don't own that thing. They try to make you measure your worth by the amount of worthless shit you own.
Re:And they prove it (Score:4, Interesting)
Advertising is about selling you shit you don't need. Selling you shit you do need is easy
I need toilet paper. Advertising has raised my awareness of the brands available and the attributes of their product. It does influence my purchasing decision, thus advertising is helping sell something I do need, disproving your first point.
So someone trying to sell me shit that I need without advertising is not succeeding, thus disproving your second point.
Marketing is not sales.
Re: (Score:3)
I need toilet paper. Advertising has raised my awareness of the brands available and the attributes of their product.
So would a nonprofit product tester like Consumer Reports.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really tired of the "I just bought that" ads. And then, since we share an Amazon account, my wife sees the surprise I purchased for her advertised to her...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really tired of the "I just bought that" ads. And then, since we share an Amazon account, my wife sees the surprise I purchased for her advertised to her...
Incentive not to buy your mistress anything without an adblocker installed.
Re:And they prove it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep.
One or two static and unobtrusive ads at any given time that are guaranteed clean and the adblockers go away.
Indeed. I'm fine with a few ads. I'm not fine with modal ads, or interstitial ads, ads that dance around the page, ads that play videos or make sound.
Simple text ads that are tastefully done is fine. Salon's technique is going to make me blacklist Salon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind seeing advertising that pays for the content I browse, so long as it can be filtered to present ads that meet a standard for non-obtrusiveness: no popups, malware, or slow loads that restrict access to the site. This is especially a problem when I'm browsing mobile.
I installed an adblocker because to much of the above "bad" ads were interrupting browse, and now I've uninstalled it because every site I encounter requires me to 'disable adblock before proceeding'. Now I just avoid the sites with
It's the tracking that is the problem (Score:3)
I don't mind seeing advertising that pays for the content I browse
I do because I have yet to find an advertiser that can provide me adequate assurances that data about me isn't being tracked and sold. I *might* be willing to live with some non-obtrusive ads if I could be sure of and control what was done with the data gathered. But until I control that process (which I have no illusions will ever happen) the ads will remain blocked and I will fight tracking with every resource at my disposal. If that means I have access to less content then so be it. Unlike you I actu
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the big bad tracking beast. Accumulating demographics on how many people searched for new cars on Tuesday in my town is something I consider totally normal and unobjectionable. I’m being surveyed without having to stop what I’m doing to fill out surveys.
And the personal tracking? Either I see ads for specific items I recently searched for and already bought or I see ads for specific items I searched for but did not buy. In either case, you’re welcome to waste your money.
Deep ignorance (Score:2)
Most media companies and ad agencies have no one who has technical knowledge, or is even interested in technical knowledge. "Adequate assurances" are at least a generation away.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past I (ad)blocked the shit out of their HTML box and screen filter blocking scrolling, nowadays as a defense, they just load a bit of the news. They do not want us visiting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay if there was a reasonable way to pay.
If say I could put â10 into a pot and have it paid out to sites I visit somehow I'd be happy to do that. Obviously I'd expect not to be bombarded with ads in return.
This sounds like a good application for a blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
If that bullshit adblocker pop up happens I click a button that disables javascript and then the site is free of annoyances. Funny thing is without the javascript the internet looks like it did in the 1990s. No animated bullshit menus and pages that move and scroll. Images that don't load until you get to them are annoying as fuck. Stop changing the layout as I'm reading as its very distracting.
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
The standard for HTML was developed as a way for scientists to communicate with each other, and against a background of Usenet norms which were hostile to advertising. I don't think it's really fair to blame Berners Lee for failing to foresee what the WWW would become.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with text or even static image adds to the side of the content. But so many pages insist on autoplay video ads, interstitial ads, that's that appear while you are trying to read shifting the text up or down until you find the ad and close it.
The Internet industry caused the creation of ad-blockers because of these and more ways they abuse those who visit their sites. They think we own them something, but we don't. If their content is interesting we will read it. If interested I ma
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even heard about Salon until this came up.
I can't help to wonder though - waste of CPU cycles through ads or through a mining operation. At least they are honest about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even heard about Salon until this came up.
I can't help to wonder though - waste of CPU cycles through ads or through a mining operation. At least they are honest about it.
They are a well established player. /. lately, do a search for "Courtney Love does the math". If memory serves, it was written in the year 2000. After reading that, you can refer to Courtney Love as the voice of reason and moderation :)
If you want a good article from Salon that hasn't been quoted here on
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help to wonder though - waste of CPU cycles through ads or through a mining operation. At least they are honest about it.
But are we sure that the mining takes place only while Salon pages are being viewed?
Today's lucky 10000 (Score:2)
I haven't even heard about Salon until this came up.
Congratulations! You are one of todays lucky 10,0000 [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even heard about Salon until this came up.
I can't help to wonder though - waste of CPU cycles through ads or through a mining operation. At least they are honest about it.
It's a shame. Salon sometimes has some really interesting articles. They are pretty much a left wing propaganda mouthpiece, but they sometimes have some interesting content nonetheless. I'd read something on their site occasionally. Never again now.
Re:And they prove it (Score:5, Insightful)
People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads. Websites so far have refused any kind of responsibility for what happens to your computer as a direct result if visiting them without an adblocker installed.
This.
Its gotten so bad that a script blocker like Ghostery is now also a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
.
In this scenario, why not let the cloud run the "malwareizements" and bit-miners, while you sit back and drink your morning coffee, malware and worry free? What's on your desktop
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it's time for a CryptoBlockPlus plugin...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have to ask yourself what kind of shit is in their ads if that's their mentality.
I actually turned off ad blocking on Salon recently, and the ads made the site unreadable. Constant DOM changes that jumped the text up and down every few seconds made for a very unpleasant experience, to the point of unusable. Also, just the ads caused my CPU cycles to jump and set my fans spinning, and the page eventually consumed so much memory that my browser halted it.
So if it's the choice between monero-mining-malware or ad-malware spinning wildly out of control, I guess we should be seeing Salon in a
Virtue signalling stops where money begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly far-left Salon isn't so concerned about climate change, the environment or that currencies like Bitcoin "enable alt-right extremists".
Re:Virtue signalling stops where money begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly far-left Salon isn't so concerned about climate change, the environment or that currencies like Bitcoin "enable alt-right extremists".
Greed is endemic across all political spectra.
Re:Virtue signalling stops where money begins (Score:5, Insightful)
But let's be honest here - only one side rides a moral high-horse denying that greed is a motivation.
Re:Not money. PROFIT. (Score:5, Informative)
(In this case, you accuse Salon of saying "alt-right extremists"
I'm not accusing. I'm quoting: https://www.salon.com/2017/12/27/is-bitcoin-enabling-alt-right-extremists/
Yet another terrible financial model (Score:3, Interesting)
Crypto-currency is just a gambling scam. I certainly regard it as a good reason to avoid any website, and they didn't need the bad press.
So let me focus on the solution I keep advocating: SELL ME THE SOLUTIONS. I'm sick and tired of all the problems. I want to do something to help SOLVE the problems.
The articles or videos about various problems should be followed by links to projects related to solutions for those problems. The journalism part could be supported directly with internal projects, or via tithes on the external projects.
AtAJG, DAUPR.
I use a privacy plugin, not an ad-blocker (Score:5, Informative)
I don't mind ads but I mind my privacy.
I use EFF's Privacy Badger [eff.org] plugin, which automatically blocks web sites that it has detected to track me.
Ads on web sites that respect users' privacy are still visible.
If their web site uses ad-networks that tracks visitors and those ads are blocked as a result then that is the site owner's fault -- and the site deserves to get those ads blocked!
Re:I use a privacy plugin, not an ad-blocker (Score:4, Interesting)
Also if you use Firefox, turn first-party cookie isolation on (about:config->privacy.firstparty.isolate)
I've noticed no problems on any of the sites I use.
Re: I use a privacy plugin, not an ad-blocker (Score:2)
This. I have no problem with any amount of ads as long they do not track me.
I have a problem with ads which use 5 times as much of my mobile data as the rest of the page put together. Especially when I'm reading a text based article which would be 1/10,000th of the size on it's own.
TextOnly browser is a great solution, when it works.
uBlock Origin (Score:2, Informative)
If you go to Salon with uBlock Origin in Medium Mode - third party scripts and frames are blocked - it turns out it loads fine.
And then you see articles like this on the front page and remember why you deleted your bookmark to Salon about ten years ago
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/18/john-oliver-gives-us-six-lessons-on-how-to-report-on-trump/ [salon.com]
A listicle based on failed Brit comedian and CURRENT YEAR man, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC saying things like 'late-night comedians have become the nation'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know that when you make an ad-hominem attack on a comedian who says unkind things about Mr. Trump you are basically signalling to the world that you've lost the argument and this is all you have left.
Oliver's new season started last night. Haven't seen it yet but I'm guessing you don't have any specific criticisms of its content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's a fucking comedian.
This is like writing an article about how insightful Dave Chapelle is on transgenderism.
I love his comedy, and I even agree with his stance on the issue, but he's still just a fucking comedian.
This is especially true for people like Oliver, because he makes all his political points interspersed with jokes, and gets all riled up.
Then when you call him out on some bullshit it's all "I'm just a fucking comedian why are you acting like I have to live up to the same standard as the news".
Re: (Score:2)
This place used to post Salon stories all day long. I never liked their agenda.
"failed"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"Failed?" John Oliver has a hit TV show that's renewed at least through 2020, a multimillion dollar salary, multiple Emmys and WGA awards, and at least one Peabody to his name. If that's your "failure" in your mind then, as Fezzik, would say, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, your assertion that HBO is a subsidiary of DNC is demonstrably untrue. They are, in (a quite easily-verifiable) fact, a subsidiary of Time Warner which is, in turn, a publicly traded corporation and now a subsidi
PSHAW! PISH POSH! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is "Medium Mode" I can't find any setting in uBlock Origin to set the "mode". I run it with its default settings and the site loads fine.
It just means "Block third party scripts and frames by default". You need to check "I am an advanced user" and then enable the two global blocks as explained here
https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... [github.com]
And then you need to work out what exceptions you need to make to get a site to work.
E.g. for slashdot I had to add a local whitelist entry for fsdn.com
https://i.imgur.com/0MVTaqq.pn... [imgur.com]
Legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
First, an ad blocker can and will block such scripts, too. Second, they are using someone else's resources without their consent. Is this legal? Or wire fraud?
Sounds legal to me (Score:2)
You missed the part where mindless outrage was the only signal the GP was on about. :)
I don't mind paying for content this way. It's a form of micropayment that does not involve ads. Yeah, it actually hits the wallet - at least if you're paying for your own electricity it does. But if the site has decent content (Salon... dubious, but perhaps I'd read there sometimes) and if the mining only occurs when I'm actually on the site, I'd be okay with it. It sure as heck beats being pummeled by ads. I have plenty
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard to block scripts and nobody forces me to visit their website. I was merely interested in the legal situation in the case when the mining is done without explicit consent, since using someone else's resources for profit without consent seems legally problematic. With explicit consent there shouldn't be much of a problem.
Unable teo recreate... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is sort of fair actually. (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ahead, mine something on my box. If the code is sandboxed - as should be the case with JS - and it doesn't slow to a grinding halt, I'm actually ok with that. But don't show me you annoying ads!
In fact, make it the default! And give me the option to choose ads over mining. That would actually be a huge improvement IMHO. No joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Go ahead, mine something on my box. If the code is sandboxed - as should be the case with JS - and it doesn't slow to a grinding halt, I'm actually ok with that. But don't show me you annoying ads!
In fact, make it the default! And give me the option to choose ads over mining. That would actually be a huge improvement IMHO. No joke.
I’d have to agree with that and if people don’t want ads and they won’t pay for a subscription I’m OK with mining as long as they don’t use too many resources and don’t do anything malicious. It costs money to run a paper and no amount of hysterical shrieking from people who feel entitled to get everything for free is going to change that.
Re: (Score:3)
You -> electric company -> heat generated on your computer -> bitcoin -> website -> bitcoin exchange -> cash to website
If you're ok with paying for the website you're visiting, just cut out everything in the middle, save your computer some wear and tear, and prevent a little bit of global warming by simply transferring money:
You -> website
Re: (Score:2)
/etc/hosts (Score:2)
there, that should fix it
Future of Website Funding (Score:3)
I predict that a few years from now, web browsers will have crytocurrency handling as a built-in feature. There will be wallets for various cryptocurrencies, and a mechanism for this to interact with websites, with a browser-controlled UI controlling this. The browser will also have a 'mining mode' that users can toggle (or set to activate automatically when idle) which slowly fills up their wallet of choice. Go to a news website or whatever, and they ask for a microtransaction in whatever denomination, it comes from your wallet (if you accept the UI prompt). You can configure in the browser that site X can deduct amounts of up to Y per page, with a notification each time this happens. This'll be HUGE for porn sites, particularly with cryptocurrencies where encrypted blockchains are used.
Wallet empty and you need some cryptocoins NOW? Handy link to a broker site with a referrer fee to the browser maker. The 'mining mode' will utilize your GPU or whatever, if available. You can configure it to only use up to X% of your CPU/GPU. Of course, the preferred cryptocoins will be those with fast transaction times and low fees, being mine-able might help, and encrypted blockchain will be preferable for some sites.
Re: (Score:3)
>> I predict that a few years from now, web browsers will have crytocurrency handling as a built-in feature
Browsers are already slow enough.
If you want to go worse, up to you, but probably most people will not go to browsers with incorporated hooks for malware.
Salon the climate change enthusiasts (Score:2)
Salon, for god sakes, is mining cryptocurrency on its readers' machines? The same Salon which believes that climate change is going to end the world is profiting on the waste of energy used to support PoW cryptocurrency? How can they possibly justify this and their left leaning viewpoint at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason as why all our climate control efforts are going to fail. Profit and short term gain.
Another Great Filter I'm sure, and I doubt we will pass it.
I actually like this (Score:2)
Site is paid for. I don't see annoying ads. If they don't have trackers in the ads, then this sounds like a win-win to me! Can I opt-in for other sites to do this?
What a surprise (Score:2)
Salon discovers that it takes money to run their operations. *GASP*
just what we need more plug in's to view websites (Score:2)
just what we need more plug in's to view websites.
Back in the days the main ones where real / QuickTime / and flash + Shockwave.
CPU mining (Score:2)
It isn't using my GPU, just the CPU.
That should be an awfully inefficient way to mine Bitcoin.
I block ads because they insult my intelligence, often are outright fraudulent, if not just manipulative and track me across domains. I don't mind web sites monetizing some other way with informed consent, but really, other than as an experiment, I don't see this working out since people browse on underpowered ARM devices these days. Still, I would like to see the numbers on the economics if anyone has them.
Why would anyone read Salon to begin with ? (Score:2)
Literal pedophilia apologists. Trash site is made even trashier.
I wouldn't mind so much... (Score:2)
...if they were willing to split HALF of the bitcoin mining with ME. Otherwise you're wanting to use MY resources for YOUR GAIN!
No they don't (Score:2)
They are just ramping up the war against consumers. So consumers now need more armor.
We shouldn't be worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the Ad agencies who should be worried.
I wouldn't mind Salon and some other news agencies using my computers to mine for e-coins. Essentially it's a micropayment system in lieu of seeing ads.
If this catches on, Salon may just rid of ads completely and use crypto-mining to generate money.
The plus side of this is that the more you read the site, the more you pay. If you just go to them because of click-bait, you won't stay on their pages long and end up not generating a lot of money for them.
Sounds like a win situation for the newspaper (they make money) and the reader (no ads). The Ad agencies lose out. But who cares about them?
CNN (Score:3)
Is there a way to check this? I'm pretty sure CNN, or one of their advertisers, is up to some funny business as the site is slow and eventually crashes its tab of Chrome when just left open.
Re: Wannabet! (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen, I am actually cool with this practice. I have always been in favour of some kind of micropayment for enjoying commercially produced content. I am just offended by advertising.
I always wanted to pay something like $0.02 per page. Paying about 1X10E-4 or E-5 Watt-hour instead sounds like a great compromise.
Re: (Score:3)
Ditto
Re: Wannabet! (Score:5, Informative)
For those that don't like this policy, there are Coin-Hive blockers [google.com].
Soon, instead of complaining about your ad-blocker, media sites will complain about your mining-blocker.
Re: Wannabet! (Score:5, Interesting)
WHAT? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE NOISE OF MY CPU, CASE AND PSU FANS!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
BUT I MEAN TO BE YELLING
Re: Wannabet! (Score:4, Insightful)
CoinHive defaults to using 40% or less of your CPU.
How is that possible? CoinHive is JavaScript. JavaScript runs in a sandbox, and does not have access to CPU usage info [stackoverflow.com].
Buffalo Bill's defunct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen, I am actually cool with this practice.
But if this idea was as prevalent as ads our computers would be very slow while trying to mine for a few open websites. I've already come across some sites mining through the browser because I noticed CPU usage jump from 3% to 50% only when this pages were open
Re: (Score:2)
Amen, I am actually cool with this practice.
And those of us on mobile devices should just accept half the battery life? It's already bad enough without trying to mine.
Re:Bad business models are not my problem (Score:5, Informative)
> If they want to put up an offer when the web page loads that's fine. I can take the offer or leave it. (and I assure you I will leave it) But if they simply go ahead and start trying to mine bitcoin on my computer without asking me first, now we have a fight.
From the Fucking Summary:
> However, unlike that incident, where hackers took control of visitors' computers to mine cryptocurrency, Salon notifies users and requires them to agree before the tool begins mining.
Re: Bad business models are not my problem (Score:5, Funny)
From the length of his comment it's pretty coast that he's a busy man who doesn't have time to read more than the headline. Clearly this whole "summary" thing is a failed business model.
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine but I don't think you've done the math on the cost per page if you think $0.02/page is reasonable. For me that could easily top $50/day at that sort of price point.
OK, let's do some math. $50 at $0.02/page is 2500 pages. That's about 2 minutes/page if you browse for 20 hours/day with no breaks. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
But you pay to see it, not to read it. So if it's $0.02/page times the number of pages you visit in a day, are you still okay with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Another fine example of how developers think. They take a FUCKING EXAMPLE and turn it into a single, nothing-else-possible case.
Jesus...
0.02/page could be 0.02/minute. Actually, considering you can mine Monero of about 1 dollar per day on an average quad-core CPU, the income for the website is 0.07 cents per minute. Your actual cost may vary depending on your CPU power consumption and electricity cost.
Re: (Score:2)
considering you can mine Monero of about 1 dollar per day on an average quad-core CPU
First, last I checked, JavaScript miners were slower than native miners. Second, will sites kick out users of older or mobile CPUs because they can't mine fast enough?
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly don't get to use my computer to mine money without contracting with me to do it first. They can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned if they try to do that behind my back.
They're not doing it behind your back. They post a notice that you have to agree to before the page loads. Just don't agree and you can go back to slashdot. Calm down.
Re: (Score:2)
Well (a) from the article it says that Salon is asking permission before it starts doing this... so right there the entire first part of your argument goes out the window. I don't mind being asked for permission to mine for cryptocurrency to pay for a resource I like (reading material).
That's fine but I don't think you've done the math on the cost per page if you think $0.02/page is reasonable. For me that could easily top $50/day at that sort of price point.
Well, quite frankly I think that OP was using that number as an example and is probably the wrong number. And how much time do you spend reading articles on a magazine website in order to rack up $50 a day in 2 cent a page ex
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could have just said no to the mining option, y'know.
Re: (Score:2)
Your admin might be clever enough to notice that it's a by-consent option.
Re: (Score:2)
Your admin might be clever enough to notice that it's a by-consent option.
He/She might also be clever enough to notice her/his average user is a dipshit that doesn't think twice about clicking Okay and running unauthorised software on a system with access to sensitive data and regulatory restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)