3 ms·

The crypto integration is an indication of a compromised vision and a lack of judgment. If the dev is willing to shove that in, what else is in there that I’m n

The crypto integration is an indication of a compromised vision and a lack of judgment. If the dev is willing to shove that in, what else is in there that I’m not aware of?

rashkov 3y ago
If you can agree that moving away from a purely ad-supported internet is a good thing, then micro-payments are a strong alternative, and internet-native money at the protocol level is a technically appropriate solution. Can you imagine google chrome bringing Tor integration into their browser? Why not?
- DANmode 3y ago
  Great points.
somenameforme 3y ago
Brave's completely open source. [1] I'm not using this as a 'go look at their source code' type meme, because obviously you won't. It's absolutely massive and one man auditing the code alone, just to see if he might want to use the browser, is absurd. But at the same time Brave attracts higher information users that are going to be disproportionately more interested in security, privacy, and so on. And there are a lot of people regularly poking through the source code, as well as contributing to improvements in it. So I think the answer to question is - absolutely nothing. The very few missteps Brave has made get broadcast from the ends of the world. The fact the biggest thing people can find to complain about it is some crypto stuff, which is opt-in and easily completely disabled, or an autocomplete tagging a referrer - that was patched out in less than 24 hours, is strongly indicative of the quality and integrity of the browser. [1] - https://github.com/brave/ https://github.com/brave/
- duskwuff 3y ago
  > or an autocomplete tagging a referrer - that was patched out in less than 24 hours That functionality (which would modify some literal URLs typed in by users, not just make autocomplete suggestions!) was present in the source repository for roughly a month and a half until it was disabled by default, and remained present as an option for over a year after that. https://github.com/brave/brave-core/commits/master/components/omnibox/browser/suggested_sites_provider_data.cc https://github.com/brave/brave-core/commits/master/component... You may mean that it was modified less than 24 hours after users noticed it and raised an outcry, but that still doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
erikpukinskis 3y ago
Which crypto judgment are you seeing that’s so damning?
DANmode 3y ago
Their operating budget, probably.

The crypto integration is an indication of a compromised vision and a lack of judgment. If the dev is willing to shove that in, what else is in there that I’m not aware of?

rashkov 3y ago

If you can agree that moving away from a purely ad-supported internet is a good thing, then micro-payments are a strong alternative, and internet-native money at the protocol level is a technically appropriate solution. Can you imagine google chrome bringing Tor integration into their browser? Why not?

DANmode 3y ago
Great points.

somenameforme 3y ago

Brave's completely open source. [1] I'm not using this as a 'go look at their source code' type meme, because obviously you won't. It's absolutely massive and one man auditing the code alone, just to see if he might want to use the browser, is absurd. But at the same time Brave attracts higher information users that are going to be disproportionately more interested in security, privacy, and so on. And there are a lot of people regularly poking through the source code, as well as contributing to improvements in it. So I think the answer to question is - absolutely nothing. The very few missteps Brave has made get broadcast from the ends of the world. The fact the biggest thing people can find to complain about it is some crypto stuff, which is opt-in and easily completely disabled, or an autocomplete tagging a referrer - that was patched out in less than 24 hours, is strongly indicative of the quality and integrity of the browser. [1] - https://github.com/brave/ https://github.com/brave/

duskwuff 3y ago
> or an autocomplete tagging a referrer - that was patched out in less than 24 hours That functionality (which would modify some literal URLs typed in by users, not just make autocomplete suggestions!) was present in the source repository for roughly a month and a half until it was disabled by default, and remained present as an option for over a year after that. https://github.com/brave/brave-core/commits/master/components/omnibox/browser/suggested_sites_provider_data.cc https://github.com/brave/brave-core/commits/master/component... You may mean that it was modified less than 24 hours after users noticed it and raised an outcry, but that still doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

erikpukinskis 3y ago

Which crypto judgment are you seeing that’s so damning?

DANmode 3y ago

Their operating budget, probably.