3 ms·

It seems you haven't thought about the consequences for such an approach.

by acqq 9y ago

jimmaswell 9y ago
If you see major issues then you should say what they are. I think trading some battery/mains power and a bit of wear on the device for using an otherwise ad-based service sounds fine.
- acqq 9y ago
  First consider how much is "some battery." E.g. do you really want that more computing work allows higher payments? Bad luck paying anything not cents when you don't have your computer or a mobile plugged in the wall. Who's "richer"? Who has a bigger computer. Etc. Also see my other comment here.
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    What's the expected return per pageview for the average ad? Not more than a few cents either, is it?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Doesn't this mean the user pays 1/10th of a cent in electricity and wear so the website can get 1/100th of a cent in mining value? I just want something where I can put in a few dollars and it goes to sites I visit. (Previous services have resembled this but with notable issues.)
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    Not having to put in money directly is one of the advantages of the approach. Aside from just convenience, hiding the true cost in this way will make it a lot more palatable for most people - if the device loses a bit of battery faster or gets warmer, it's not a big deal, but being forced to think about it in terms of direct payment will elicit more reactions of opting to just not go to as many websites.
    - acqq 9y ago
      If you just want for user to make it "palatable" you can produce the solution that doesn't involve mining and be "palatable." We are already having our batteries too drained by ads, that's a primary reason why I install add-block on the mobile.
imiric 9y ago
All current consequences are simply because the system hasn't been fleshed out and perfected enough. It's way too early to judge the approach based on current implementations, because of flaws in those implementations. But consider a system where the user is always in control of how much resources the web miner is consuming, via say, specific quotas based on domain, content creator, etc., and that there could be little risk for the miner to hijack those resources. This is a technical problem that can be easily solved in future revisions. That said, I'm not sure if mining is the right approach, simply because the proof of work is completely arbitrary for some currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and has no real value. With content creators it's clear: they provide the value, the content consumers want, and set the cost accordingly, and the consumer simply decides to pay for it. It's simple, and no client side mining would be required. Mining is only necessary to lower the barrier of entry for the consumer, since they wouldn't need to have a digital wallet with existing funds. But in the near future owning a digital wallet will be just as common, if not more, as having a social media account, so this wouldn't be necessary for the long term.
- acqq 9y ago
  > That said, I'm not sure if mining is the right approach, simply because the proof of work is completely arbitrary for some currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and has no real value. Exactly. > Mining is only necessary to lower the barrier of entry for the consumer, Even now there is a barrier of entry, which is the processing costs. The goal is to lower them, not to force burning the more hydrocarbons for every transaction.

It seems you haven't thought about the consequences for such an approach.

by acqq 9y ago

It seems you haven't thought about the consequences for such an approach.

If you see major issues then you should say what they are. I think trading some battery/mains power and a bit of wear on the device for using an otherwise ad-based service sounds fine.

acqq 9y ago
First consider how much is "some battery." E.g. do you really want that more computing work allows higher payments? Bad luck paying anything not cents when you don't have your computer or a mobile plugged in the wall. Who's "richer"? Who has a bigger computer. Etc. Also see my other comment here.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  What's the expected return per pageview for the average ad? Not more than a few cents either, is it?
Dylan16807 9y ago
Doesn't this mean the user pays 1/10th of a cent in electricity and wear so the website can get 1/100th of a cent in mining value? I just want something where I can put in a few dollars and it goes to sites I visit. (Previous services have resembled this but with notable issues.)
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Not having to put in money directly is one of the advantages of the approach. Aside from just convenience, hiding the true cost in this way will make it a lot more palatable for most people - if the device loses a bit of battery faster or gets warmer, it's not a big deal, but being forced to think about it in terms of direct payment will elicit more reactions of opting to just not go to as many websites.
  - acqq 9y ago
    If you just want for user to make it "palatable" you can produce the solution that doesn't involve mining and be "palatable." We are already having our batteries too drained by ads, that's a primary reason why I install add-block on the mobile.

imiric 9y ago

All current consequences are simply because the system hasn't been fleshed out and perfected enough. It's way too early to judge the approach based on current implementations, because of flaws in those implementations. But consider a system where the user is always in control of how much resources the web miner is consuming, via say, specific quotas based on domain, content creator, etc., and that there could be little risk for the miner to hijack those resources. This is a technical problem that can be easily solved in future revisions. That said, I'm not sure if mining is the right approach, simply because the proof of work is completely arbitrary for some currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and has no real value. With content creators it's clear: they provide the value, the content consumers want, and set the cost accordingly, and the consumer simply decides to pay for it. It's simple, and no client side mining would be required. Mining is only necessary to lower the barrier of entry for the consumer, since they wouldn't need to have a digital wallet with existing funds. But in the near future owning a digital wallet will be just as common, if not more, as having a social media account, so this wouldn't be necessary for the long term.

acqq 9y ago
> That said, I'm not sure if mining is the right approach, simply because the proof of work is completely arbitrary for some currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and has no real value. Exactly. > Mining is only necessary to lower the barrier of entry for the consumer, Even now there is a barrier of entry, which is the processing costs. The goal is to lower them, not to force burning the more hydrocarbons for every transaction.