5 ms·

"Solution" wow, just step back a second here, I never signed up for advertisements AT ALL, much less background CPU miners for shady schemes. Solution is the l

"Solution" wow, just step back a second here, I never signed up for advertisements AT ALL, much less background CPU miners for shady schemes. Solution is the last word to use, there is no problem first off and malware is not how you would solve this fantasy of a "problem".

phailhaus 9y ago
You have to remember that you're not entitled to their server resources. If you are not okay with a CPU miner, then don't use their site. I'm okay with this as long as they are 100% transparent about their monetization scheme.
- chii 9y ago
  > don't use their site Or, use their site, but the end user always dictate the code that runs on their own machine. If the server don't wish for a user to skimp the mining, make them submit the proof of work result first, then serve the content.
- Nursie 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to request content, and my machine can render it however it likes. They make the choice whether to serve it or not.
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. If the user refuses to run the miner, don't serve the content. It's the exact same with ad blockers.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > my machine can render it however it likes The cost isn't what hardware does the most work. It's what time was spent creating the content. Of course they have the choice whether to serve it or not, but don't mistake the hours put into writing an article with the milliseconds used to serve a request. You're not (not) paying for the latter.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      What a strange argument, it's not about cost, it's about ownership. The creators own their content, the consumers own their hardware. Either is free to do what they wish with their piece.
- tentaTherapist 9y ago
  If you give me code and I don't run it, I don't really think I'm at fault here. If this was opt-in maybe they'd receive more sympathy, but as it stands wasting my electricity to make them a fraction of a cent is a rather unwelcome surprise.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > You have to remember that you're not entitled to their server resources. I am, to the extent their server responds to open protocols on the public Internet. It's up to them, not me, to configure what their server sends when. This is literally how the Internet works.
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    We're not disagreeing. Server makes it clear they want to run a miner, if the user refuses then don't serve the content.
- lagadu 9y ago
  If the server feels I'm not entitled to its resources, the server is welcome to respond with a 402 code.
rootlocus 9y ago
> there is no problem first off and malware is not how you would solve this fantasy of a "problem". If you think consuming content online without paying anything for it isn't a problem, you're wrong and it's not even debatable [1]. I'm not saying this is a good solution. I'm just pointing out it's not a "fantasy" of a problem. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ

phailhaus 9y ago

You have to remember that you're not entitled to their server resources. If you are not okay with a CPU miner, then don't use their site. I'm okay with this as long as they are 100% transparent about their monetization scheme.

chii 9y ago
> don't use their site Or, use their site, but the end user always dictate the code that runs on their own machine. If the server don't wish for a user to skimp the mining, make them submit the proof of work result first, then serve the content.
Nursie 9y ago
I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to request content, and my machine can render it however it likes. They make the choice whether to serve it or not.
- phailhaus 9y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. If the user refuses to run the miner, don't serve the content. It's the exact same with ad blockers.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > my machine can render it however it likes The cost isn't what hardware does the most work. It's what time was spent creating the content. Of course they have the choice whether to serve it or not, but don't mistake the hours put into writing an article with the milliseconds used to serve a request. You're not (not) paying for the latter.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    What a strange argument, it's not about cost, it's about ownership. The creators own their content, the consumers own their hardware. Either is free to do what they wish with their piece.
tentaTherapist 9y ago
If you give me code and I don't run it, I don't really think I'm at fault here. If this was opt-in maybe they'd receive more sympathy, but as it stands wasting my electricity to make them a fraction of a cent is a rather unwelcome surprise.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> You have to remember that you're not entitled to their server resources. I am, to the extent their server responds to open protocols on the public Internet. It's up to them, not me, to configure what their server sends when. This is literally how the Internet works.
- phailhaus 9y ago
  We're not disagreeing. Server makes it clear they want to run a miner, if the user refuses then don't serve the content.
lagadu 9y ago
If the server feels I'm not entitled to its resources, the server is welcome to respond with a 402 code.

rootlocus 9y ago

> there is no problem first off and malware is not how you would solve this fantasy of a "problem". If you think consuming content online without paying anything for it isn't a problem, you're wrong and it's not even debatable [1]. I'm not saying this is a good solution. I'm just pointing out it's not a "fantasy" of a problem. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ