14 ms·

I refuse to use a browser with a cryptocurrency attached to it. It feels like the only reason it is being pushed so hard is so BAT holders can make a buck. It

I refuse to use a browser with a cryptocurrency attached to it. It feels like the only reason it is being pushed so hard is so BAT holders can make a buck. It might be a great browser but I will always think of it as onecoin with a some chrome tossed in.

olah_1 7y ago
Attaching a crypt coin to it only makes sense if it's more fully decentralized. The fact that it is centralized is why it's confusing. We run the VPN and they get the money. In something like Lokinet, the whole thing is distributed and the people that run the service nodes get rewarded with coins. But normal end users don't have to think about the coin at all.
bufferoverflow 7y ago
Who cares? You don't have to use the crypto part of it at all.
- atoav 7y ago
  Idk – with something as crucial as a browser I want the people who give it to me to have a clear and obvious incentive structure.
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    You still didn't explain how a feature that you'd never use affects you in any negative way. Every browser has features that you don't use.
    - 3solarmasses 7y ago
      A lot of HN users can't stand crypto simply because they missed out. Envy leads to childlike refusals.
  - mhluongo 7y ago
    With other browsers, the clear and obvious incentive is "to get paid to spy on users". I'm not a big Brave fan but saying their incentives are worse than Chrome or even Firefox is ridiculous.
    - unicornporn 7y ago
      > or even Firefox Please expand.
      - mhluongo 7y ago
        Where does most of the Mozilla Corporation's money come from? I'm not trying to cast stones here, but they're still primarily (last time I checked) funded by Google- not users. Your incentives are aligned with the people who pay you.
    - identity0 7y ago
      Have you ever heard of open source browsers like ungoogled chromium or pale moon? They have no incentives and are far better than brave’s, who wants to sell you advertising.
      - mhluongo 7y ago
        Of course. Chromium is still an upstream that has had changes due to Google's interests, right?
      - knocte 7y ago
        > who wants to sell you advertising. Inaccurate. Brave wants to overhaul advertising: to be able to switch it off completely paying a fee, or earn money by not switching it off (and thus watching the ads), tune it, etc
        spsful 7y ago
        This is why I happily set Brave Ads to show me the maximum amount of ads per hour. Brave is serving ads in a privacy-conscious implantation which uses local machine intelligence to determine interests. There's no broker trying to sell your data to advertisers and yet personalized ads can still be served. Also, Brave Ads show up as a notification. Much more aesthetically pleasing than those whole-page ads that some websites have unfortunately adopted.
  - tlholaday 7y ago
    Brave Software has a clear and obvious incentive structure. Here is the business model: 1. Build and maintain a browser which creates a local profile of its user, a profile which never leaves the user's machine. 2. Sell ads which can be targeted to users with certain characteristics. Distribute the entire catalog to every user's machine. The browser selects a suitable ad from the catalog and displays it to willing users. 3. Profit.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    I'm not a big fan of BAT, but how much clearer can the incentive structure be? Offering a browser completely for free is actually much more questionable. User becomes the product, but it's never stated anywhere. With BAT it's pretty clear who are the interested parties and why.
- johnpowell 7y ago
  Until that update flips that flag and the opt-in becomes the default. Do you trust Facebook to honor your privacy settings?
  - bufferoverflow 7y ago
    What does Facebook have to do with any of that? Facebook can't change the privacy rules or the settings of your browser.
    - johnpowell 7y ago
      I consider both companies untrustworthy. I was using a example of a thing nearly everyone shouldn't trust. I could have used Google, Apple, USPS as examples too.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
teh_infallible 7y ago
This seems like a nonsense argument. You prefer a browser that spies on you? Over a cryptocurrency you don’t have to use?
- Spivak 7y ago
  It’s not really one or the other. Firefox and Safari both exist and the incentives of the companies that run them are reasonably aligned with user privacy.
  - jonathansampson 7y ago
    Our CEO co-founded Mozilla and Firefox. There is still a problem of invasive tracking and surveillance capitalism on the Web, and neither or these are hit as hard in Safari and Firefox as they are in a default install of Brave. The BAT component is off-by-default in Brave. Only enabled when the user explicitly opts-in to the feature. This is a necessary component, as blocking-alone is not a solution to the sustainability problem. Blocking trackers and their ads means blocking revenue for the content creators and publishers we all know and love. Extra steps have to be made if we're going to continue to foster and grow the Web we have all come to love. With Brave you enjoy a base-line experience of privacy and security out of the box. Opting into Brave Rewards means you can earn tokens for your attention, without giving up your data. Those tokens are automatically queued up for an end-of-month contributions to the sites and properties you visit most. Or, you can tip those properties in a one-off-manner (like I do every time I land on a Wikipedia page). I hope this helps a bit. If there is anything further I can address, I'd be happy to chat. Thank you for your time and attention :)
    - ignoramous 7y ago
      I may not necessarily agree with BAT, but I do suggest Brave to anyone who is too flustered to use Firefox with uBlockOrigin and other extensions [0]. It really has a great UX. As for long term sustainability of the web [1], Brave, imo, has a better idea on their hands than Google's proposed privacy-sandbox [2]. For the sake of competition and innovation, I hope there are many more such initiatives. Best! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809574 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891
colordrops 7y ago
It's opt-in, and the feature can even be completely hidden in the settings. Brave is an awesome browser. Certainly better than Chrome when it comes to privacy.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Better than Chrome is such a low bar though. Chromium is better than Chrome, Kiwi is better than Chrome, Edge is better than Chrome.
  - colordrops 7y ago
    Is it a low bar? Chrome has the best JS and rendering engine in existence. Brave has all that, being a fork, and also the best privacy, except maybe the Duck browser. It's only missing the configurability and extensibility of Firefox, but that's arguably a privacy liability.
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      I believe the post was referencing the OP's statement that "Certainly better than Chrome when it comes to privacy.", not any kind of purely technical merits.
safeplanet-fesa 7y ago
Exactly. I am a big hater of everything that even remotely feels like a shitcoin. BAT is a silly useless project; I would not hate it if there was no conflict of interests, even if it's a silly project; but there is a huge conflict of interest - the developers want to make money out of thin air by issuing their tokens. I already wrote this before in another comment. Basic Attention Token is not a secure cryptographic system. The idea to pay tokens for shown ads cannot be cryptographically secure. There is no known way to have a cryptographically strong "Proof-of-Watch". All that browser does is, when a user watches an ad, it communicates to its backend and asks the backend to send a token to an address attached to the user. It's not a cryptographic system that mines coins by showing ads. It's a useless gimmick that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. The real coins are so valuable because they are cryptographically strong. This thing is centralized and its mechanism of payments for ad views is not cryptographically strong. The token has some value only because of peoples' stupidity.
- jonathansampson 7y ago
  There seems to be some confusion here; users aren't paid for watching ads in Brave. When an ad notification has been delivered, the user is paid. There's a subtle difference there. Brave (because it is the browser) is able to determine when an ad has been displayed, better than any JavaScript-based client that exists today on the Web. Presently, ads are only shown as desktop notifications (no publisher ads at this time). When the notification is registered, your end-of-month payout increases. Judging by your choice of words, I assume you're a proponent of using Bitcoin. We did this, originally. Unfortunately, Bitcoin was at that time experiencing serious issues with network congestion and large fees. Our users (who only with to buy $5 or $10 at a time) would often have to pay nearly as much in fees. That clearly isn't sustainable. Introducing BAT (on the Ethereum blockchain) meant we had a faster, more reliable system. It also meant the creation of the User Growth Pool, a reservoir of 300 million tokens that could be gifted to early users to raise this novel apparatus off the ground (and it has been working wonderfully at that). If there are any questions I can answer for you, I'd be happy to chat further.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
jonathansampson 7y ago
Hello, John! I'm Sampson, a developer on the browser. The BAT component is not on-by-default in Brave. By default, you get a browser that blocks third-party trackers (and the ads that rely on them), prevents fingerprinting, crypto-jacking, auto-play media, and more. Unfortunately, the ad-system that has become infested with malicious tracking and more is also a means by which creators across the Web find support. This is why Brave introduced the Brave Rewards component. So that we can create not only a safer Web, but a sustainable Web. Opting-in to Brave Rewards means you're able to earn tokens for your attention. By default, these tokens are then donated to the sites and properties you visit throughout the month. The more you visit a property, the higher their end-of-month contribution will be. All of this works without violating your privacy, thanks to on-device matching of ads and machine-learning. The token integration is a minimal component, but with a massive impact on the long-term sustainability of the Web. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. All the best!
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Given that IP address, user agent, fonts, screen dimensions, and a few other data points easily found via JavaScript can create a fingerprint [0], isn't a bit disingenuous to suggest any browser can truly block tracking, especially if JavaScript is enabled? I could use cURL to perform all web browsing, but my IP Address + User Agent could still be tracked by the website I visit. With time, what seems to be occurring is a game of cat-and-mouse where trackers develop more powerful heuristics for creating fingerprints. [0]: https://amiunique.org/ https://amiunique.org/
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    To extend your comment; Even your mouse movements can be used to form an identity of you. Not only that, your mouse movements even correlate to demographic information about you (eg age/gender/etc). With that said, I think you're correct in that it'll be a game of cat and mouse, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Are you implying that there is anything that can be done beyond the traditional cat and mouse? Because I feel that's the same with security, crypto, etc etc.
tlholaday 7y ago
Two comments: * BAT is a non-financial utility token, not a currency. * The Brave Referral Program specifically prohibited participants from making statements that BAT is a currency, a store of value, or an investment. Examples of real-world non-financial utility tokens are amusement-park ride tickets and beer-garden food-and-drink tickets.
- otterley 7y ago
  If it's not a currency, what value does it have to the holder? It should also be noted that the law determines what qualifies as a currency, not the issuer. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - you know the rest.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    Utility tokens are, like arcade game tokens or food and drink tickets at a fair, valuable for their use with a particular venue or service -- not for their exchange value. Generally, the law does not recognise these kinds of things as currency.
    - otterley 7y ago
      I'm reminded of Itchy and Scratchy Money, themselves a parody of Disney Dollars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ I'm not sure why Brave thinks the public will seriously value these.
      - solidsnack9000 7y ago
        Purpose specific tokens make sense when the scope is "limited enough". The public does actually use laundromat tokens, food tickets at fairs, arcade tokens and similar things. They wouldn't take them seriously outside of the appropriate context but they definitely take them seriously within them.
        7y ago
rolltiide 7y ago
“I refuse to use an airline with a digital currency attached to it” “I refuse to use a credit card with a digital currency attached to it” But since nobody says that, you lose your mind when a blockchain based one is used? Which is also as entirely optional as the above programs? Which you use as an ad hominem attack to add non-sequiturs to any contribution under the “Brave” brand such as this ZK VPN system which doesn't even use the digital currency? Fascinating, lets revisit this “taboo” next year to see if it is one at all!
- eitland 7y ago
  GP didn't say digital currency but cryptocurrency.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    what difference does an optional rewards program make when its on a blockchain and also has nothing to do with the article?
rolltiide 7y ago
> I refuse to use a browser with a cryptocurrency attached to it. The optional rewards program that happens to use a distributed ledger for settlement? Lets see how that sounds when it is rephrased “I refuse to use an airline with a rewards program attached to it” “I refuse to use a credit card with a rewards program attached to it” But since nobody says that, you lose your mind when a blockchain based one is used? Which is also as entirely optional as the above programs? Which you use as an ad hominem attack to add non-sequiturs to any contribution under the “Brave” brand such as this ZK VPN system which doesn't even use the digital currency? Fascinating, lets revisit this “taboo” next year to see!

olah_1 7y ago

Attaching a crypt coin to it only makes sense if it's more fully decentralized. The fact that it is centralized is why it's confusing. We run the VPN and they get the money. In something like Lokinet, the whole thing is distributed and the people that run the service nodes get rewarded with coins. But normal end users don't have to think about the coin at all.

bufferoverflow 7y ago

Who cares? You don't have to use the crypto part of it at all.

atoav 7y ago
Idk – with something as crucial as a browser I want the people who give it to me to have a clear and obvious incentive structure.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  You still didn't explain how a feature that you'd never use affects you in any negative way. Every browser has features that you don't use.
  - 3solarmasses 7y ago
    A lot of HN users can't stand crypto simply because they missed out. Envy leads to childlike refusals.
- mhluongo 7y ago
  With other browsers, the clear and obvious incentive is "to get paid to spy on users". I'm not a big Brave fan but saying their incentives are worse than Chrome or even Firefox is ridiculous.
  - unicornporn 7y ago
    > or even Firefox Please expand.
    - mhluongo 7y ago
      Where does most of the Mozilla Corporation's money come from? I'm not trying to cast stones here, but they're still primarily (last time I checked) funded by Google- not users. Your incentives are aligned with the people who pay you.
  - identity0 7y ago
    Have you ever heard of open source browsers like ungoogled chromium or pale moon? They have no incentives and are far better than brave’s, who wants to sell you advertising.
    - mhluongo 7y ago
      Of course. Chromium is still an upstream that has had changes due to Google's interests, right?
    - knocte 7y ago
      > who wants to sell you advertising. Inaccurate. Brave wants to overhaul advertising: to be able to switch it off completely paying a fee, or earn money by not switching it off (and thus watching the ads), tune it, etc
      - spsful 7y ago
        This is why I happily set Brave Ads to show me the maximum amount of ads per hour. Brave is serving ads in a privacy-conscious implantation which uses local machine intelligence to determine interests. There's no broker trying to sell your data to advertisers and yet personalized ads can still be served. Also, Brave Ads show up as a notification. Much more aesthetically pleasing than those whole-page ads that some websites have unfortunately adopted.
- tlholaday 7y ago
  Brave Software has a clear and obvious incentive structure. Here is the business model: 1. Build and maintain a browser which creates a local profile of its user, a profile which never leaves the user's machine. 2. Sell ads which can be targeted to users with certain characteristics. Distribute the entire catalog to every user's machine. The browser selects a suitable ad from the catalog and displays it to willing users. 3. Profit.
- trickstra 7y ago
  I'm not a big fan of BAT, but how much clearer can the incentive structure be? Offering a browser completely for free is actually much more questionable. User becomes the product, but it's never stated anywhere. With BAT it's pretty clear who are the interested parties and why.
johnpowell 7y ago
Until that update flips that flag and the opt-in becomes the default. Do you trust Facebook to honor your privacy settings?
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  What does Facebook have to do with any of that? Facebook can't change the privacy rules or the settings of your browser.
  - johnpowell 7y ago
    I consider both companies untrustworthy. I was using a example of a thing nearly everyone shouldn't trust. I could have used Google, Apple, USPS as examples too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

teh_infallible 7y ago

This seems like a nonsense argument. You prefer a browser that spies on you? Over a cryptocurrency you don’t have to use?

Spivak 7y ago
It’s not really one or the other. Firefox and Safari both exist and the incentives of the companies that run them are reasonably aligned with user privacy.
- jonathansampson 7y ago
  Our CEO co-founded Mozilla and Firefox. There is still a problem of invasive tracking and surveillance capitalism on the Web, and neither or these are hit as hard in Safari and Firefox as they are in a default install of Brave. The BAT component is off-by-default in Brave. Only enabled when the user explicitly opts-in to the feature. This is a necessary component, as blocking-alone is not a solution to the sustainability problem. Blocking trackers and their ads means blocking revenue for the content creators and publishers we all know and love. Extra steps have to be made if we're going to continue to foster and grow the Web we have all come to love. With Brave you enjoy a base-line experience of privacy and security out of the box. Opting into Brave Rewards means you can earn tokens for your attention, without giving up your data. Those tokens are automatically queued up for an end-of-month contributions to the sites and properties you visit most. Or, you can tip those properties in a one-off-manner (like I do every time I land on a Wikipedia page). I hope this helps a bit. If there is anything further I can address, I'd be happy to chat. Thank you for your time and attention :)
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    I may not necessarily agree with BAT, but I do suggest Brave to anyone who is too flustered to use Firefox with uBlockOrigin and other extensions [0]. It really has a great UX. As for long term sustainability of the web [1], Brave, imo, has a better idea on their hands than Google's proposed privacy-sandbox [2]. For the sake of competition and innovation, I hope there are many more such initiatives. Best! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20783339 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809574 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20767891

colordrops 7y ago

It's opt-in, and the feature can even be completely hidden in the settings. Brave is an awesome browser. Certainly better than Chrome when it comes to privacy.

Spivak 7y ago
Better than Chrome is such a low bar though. Chromium is better than Chrome, Kiwi is better than Chrome, Edge is better than Chrome.
- colordrops 7y ago
  Is it a low bar? Chrome has the best JS and rendering engine in existence. Brave has all that, being a fork, and also the best privacy, except maybe the Duck browser. It's only missing the configurability and extensibility of Firefox, but that's arguably a privacy liability.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    I believe the post was referencing the OP's statement that "Certainly better than Chrome when it comes to privacy.", not any kind of purely technical merits.

safeplanet-fesa 7y ago

Exactly. I am a big hater of everything that even remotely feels like a shitcoin. BAT is a silly useless project; I would not hate it if there was no conflict of interests, even if it's a silly project; but there is a huge conflict of interest - the developers want to make money out of thin air by issuing their tokens. I already wrote this before in another comment. Basic Attention Token is not a secure cryptographic system. The idea to pay tokens for shown ads cannot be cryptographically secure. There is no known way to have a cryptographically strong "Proof-of-Watch". All that browser does is, when a user watches an ad, it communicates to its backend and asks the backend to send a token to an address attached to the user. It's not a cryptographic system that mines coins by showing ads. It's a useless gimmick that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. The real coins are so valuable because they are cryptographically strong. This thing is centralized and its mechanism of payments for ad views is not cryptographically strong. The token has some value only because of peoples' stupidity.

jonathansampson 7y ago
There seems to be some confusion here; users aren't paid for watching ads in Brave. When an ad notification has been delivered, the user is paid. There's a subtle difference there. Brave (because it is the browser) is able to determine when an ad has been displayed, better than any JavaScript-based client that exists today on the Web. Presently, ads are only shown as desktop notifications (no publisher ads at this time). When the notification is registered, your end-of-month payout increases. Judging by your choice of words, I assume you're a proponent of using Bitcoin. We did this, originally. Unfortunately, Bitcoin was at that time experiencing serious issues with network congestion and large fees. Our users (who only with to buy $5 or $10 at a time) would often have to pay nearly as much in fees. That clearly isn't sustainable. Introducing BAT (on the Ethereum blockchain) meant we had a faster, more reliable system. It also meant the creation of the User Growth Pool, a reservoir of 300 million tokens that could be gifted to early users to raise this novel apparatus off the ground (and it has been working wonderfully at that). If there are any questions I can answer for you, I'd be happy to chat further.
- bogomipz 7y ago

jonathansampson 7y ago

Hello, John! I'm Sampson, a developer on the browser. The BAT component is not on-by-default in Brave. By default, you get a browser that blocks third-party trackers (and the ads that rely on them), prevents fingerprinting, crypto-jacking, auto-play media, and more. Unfortunately, the ad-system that has become infested with malicious tracking and more is also a means by which creators across the Web find support. This is why Brave introduced the Brave Rewards component. So that we can create not only a safer Web, but a sustainable Web. Opting-in to Brave Rewards means you're able to earn tokens for your attention. By default, these tokens are then donated to the sites and properties you visit throughout the month. The more you visit a property, the higher their end-of-month contribution will be. All of this works without violating your privacy, thanks to on-device matching of ads and machine-learning. The token integration is a minimal component, but with a massive impact on the long-term sustainability of the Web. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. All the best!

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Given that IP address, user agent, fonts, screen dimensions, and a few other data points easily found via JavaScript can create a fingerprint [0], isn't a bit disingenuous to suggest any browser can truly block tracking, especially if JavaScript is enabled? I could use cURL to perform all web browsing, but my IP Address + User Agent could still be tracked by the website I visit. With time, what seems to be occurring is a game of cat-and-mouse where trackers develop more powerful heuristics for creating fingerprints. [0]: https://amiunique.org/ https://amiunique.org/
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  To extend your comment; Even your mouse movements can be used to form an identity of you. Not only that, your mouse movements even correlate to demographic information about you (eg age/gender/etc). With that said, I think you're correct in that it'll be a game of cat and mouse, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Are you implying that there is anything that can be done beyond the traditional cat and mouse? Because I feel that's the same with security, crypto, etc etc.

tlholaday 7y ago

Two comments: * BAT is a non-financial utility token, not a currency. * The Brave Referral Program specifically prohibited participants from making statements that BAT is a currency, a store of value, or an investment. Examples of real-world non-financial utility tokens are amusement-park ride tickets and beer-garden food-and-drink tickets.

otterley 7y ago
If it's not a currency, what value does it have to the holder? It should also be noted that the law determines what qualifies as a currency, not the issuer. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - you know the rest.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Utility tokens are, like arcade game tokens or food and drink tickets at a fair, valuable for their use with a particular venue or service -- not for their exchange value. Generally, the law does not recognise these kinds of things as currency.
  - otterley 7y ago
    I'm reminded of Itchy and Scratchy Money, themselves a parody of Disney Dollars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ I'm not sure why Brave thinks the public will seriously value these.
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      Purpose specific tokens make sense when the scope is "limited enough". The public does actually use laundromat tokens, food tickets at fairs, arcade tokens and similar things. They wouldn't take them seriously outside of the appropriate context but they definitely take them seriously within them.
      - 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

“I refuse to use an airline with a digital currency attached to it” “I refuse to use a credit card with a digital currency attached to it” But since nobody says that, you lose your mind when a blockchain based one is used? Which is also as entirely optional as the above programs? Which you use as an ad hominem attack to add non-sequiturs to any contribution under the “Brave” brand such as this ZK VPN system which doesn't even use the digital currency? Fascinating, lets revisit this “taboo” next year to see if it is one at all!

eitland 7y ago
GP didn't say digital currency but cryptocurrency.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  what difference does an optional rewards program make when its on a blockchain and also has nothing to do with the article?

rolltiide 7y ago

> I refuse to use a browser with a cryptocurrency attached to it. The optional rewards program that happens to use a distributed ledger for settlement? Lets see how that sounds when it is rephrased “I refuse to use an airline with a rewards program attached to it” “I refuse to use a credit card with a rewards program attached to it” But since nobody says that, you lose your mind when a blockchain based one is used? Which is also as entirely optional as the above programs? Which you use as an ad hominem attack to add non-sequiturs to any contribution under the “Brave” brand such as this ZK VPN system which doesn't even use the digital currency? Fascinating, lets revisit this “taboo” next year to see!