Without that, I think people are unlikely to be sympathetic and they'll be snagged by ad blockers rapidly: consent is the cornerstone of products people like.

https://github.com/hoshsadiq/adblock-nocoin-list/

Or maybe search rankings will be affected by CPU usage, and bandwidth.

I was thinking the same thing the other day when I first heard about it. One of the main issues with existing subscription models is that some people only want to consume a small fraction of what is available from a service provider (news, music, video etc) yet have to pay a not-insignificant fee for access to everything. A good example would be the latest Star Trek series only being available in the US via CBS All Access (thankful that I'm in a country where it'll be available on Netflix).

If I could lease out my CPU for a real-time exchange of services, that'd suit me just fine. I already have accounts with an energy provider and ISP, so it's one fewer monetary relationship I need to worry about.

You could be asked on a per view basis, so by default all sites are blocked and need to ask for the exchange to be approved. You could also white-list trusted sites, or for a set period approve all requests not unlike a software firewall e.g. Little Snitch paired with an ad-blocker.

This is something the W3C should standardise at the browser level so it's not inefficient and works across different browsers effectively. It could potentially save journalism and other business models that don't jive well with existing subscription/payment structures.

It's like driving for uber where in the end you pay more for repairs than you would in salary.

edit: And CBS most likely never ordained the mining to begin with.

I see it alongside ads.

Also, I question whether it's a sensible use of electricity on the whole.

I'm more worried about the precedent, "informed consent" can always be buried deep in a T&C document.

Downloading the 1080p torrent off TPB.

A single computer earns pennies, a couple hundred thousand earn way more.

Personally, I don't mind it so long as it is both fully disclosed and the ramifications fully explained - both in an accessible manner to a layperson. So long as they do that, I'm okay with it. I'm more okay with it if they give the user a simple means to opt out in a meaningful fashion.

Now, chances are exactly none of those conditions will be met in the real world. But, in principle, I am okay with it.

> "Upon reviewing our products and code, the HTML comments shown in the screenshot that are referencing newrelic were not injected by New Relic's agents. It appears they were added to the website by its developers."

> [Coin Hive] did confirm to us, however, that the email address used to set up the account was a personal one, and was not an official CBS email address, further suggesting malicious activity.

Furthermore you can't even fix the price of the payment since you're at the mercy of the hash difficulty and the cryptocurrency value. Doesn't seem like a very good business model to me.

"Spare CPU cycles" were only a thing back in the 90's, when CPUs ran at a fixed frequency, and it didn't make much difference whether it was running useful code or waiting in the idle loop. Nowadays, the frequency and voltage vary depending on whether the CPU is being used or not, so instead of "spare cycles" doing nothing the CPU powers itself down.

Greed basically.

No thanks.

Then again, that seems like one of the fastest ways to make the average citizen actually angry at the Great Firewall.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/massi...