Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Would You Accept 'Bitcoin-Ware' Apps?
After the E-Sports Entertainment Association admitted to sneaking Bitcoin-mining code into its client software, an anonymous reader writes "I thought that could have been a pretty clever idea, if it was made clear to the users that they could get the app and run it for free as long as, let's say, they accept that it would be run for Bitcoin mining for five hours a week, when their computer is idle. That could make a lot of profit for the developers if their app is truly successful, and without the users having to pay much (only a limited number of hours per week, and if the user is no longer running the app then it won't try to mine anymore). What do you think about this?"
So that I can remove the Bitcoin bits.
So basically you're proposing a move from just give me a little cash upfront to let me leech off your electricity bill in a ridiculously circuitous way to gamble for BTC (keeping in mind that the more people that adopt your model of "BitCoin-Ware" the more people will be vying for BTC the less your expected value will return)?
... I guess deceptive if you don't point out the small cost to their electrical bill ...
An interesting idea and definitely one for the mathematicians but simply unsustainable and risky and
My work here is dung.
I can't believe /. approved this.
Truly, you have to be kidding. If I'm going to mine it'd be for myself.
I have only so much extra CPU and GP power and I donate all of it to cancer research, so I don't have any left to give to parasites.
Mining isn't free - the cost of mining is actually less than the cost of electricity on normal desktop machines (otherwise everyone would be doing it already).
As most people probably figured out, in this case less is more.
Perhaps the question should be whether or not consumers would be willing to pay for an application through mining for the developer. I could see that as preferrable to in-app charges or advertisement and various other sneaky ways game devs have tried to hide the way the real ammount they want consumers to pay for things.
No. If you want to make money (in whatever currency) for your programs, then charge money for your programs --- don't be a douchebag who preys on customers' vulnerability to not accurately counting hidden costs of your schemes. You think your customers would benefit from using their computer time to mine Bitcoin? Then provide them with a handy bitcoin-mining app that they can control, and accept bitcoins as payment for your products.
I have core i7 laptop w/o a gpu capable of mining nbitcoins and still am not able to mine anything for myself. how is this app going to figure out what I am running and mine bitcoins ? On the other hand, if I am capable of mining bitcoins on my own (i.e. just for the cost of electricity and an app developer is asking me 0.01 bitcoins for a mundane app, I wouldn't think as much as I think spending my hard earned $2 real money for that app. Same idea with pay pal. I get incentives for completing some surveys of real value to me (not survey farms) in the order of few dollars a month. And I can spend that money with less worry, knowing it didn't cost me anything other than few minutes of my spare time to get it.
So the premise is exciting but mechanics of it is still a bit unclear to me.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
First, how effective will the users' computers be at mining? The ESEA one worked because their users were hardcore gamers, who are more likely to have powerful GPUs which can mine effectively. You're planning an "app", which implies "smartphone app", which is not going to have nearly enough power to get *any* amount of money. Even with just standard desktops, you're unlikely to get anything. A lot of people *with* powerful GPUs are getting out of the game, because ASICs are making them less effective.
Second, lets look at the effects. A computer mining Bitcoins is *loud*. It's running under full load, and the fans are pretty much pegged at 80-100%. And they also spit out a lot of heat. And so on. I wouldn't like my computer running like that.
Third, how are you going to explain that to users? If they're smart enough to understand Bitcoin, they'll already either be mining, or have decided that they don't want to mine. Your app won't change their mind. As for the other 99% of humanity, how are you going to tell them "you can run this app for free, but for 5hr a week we take over your computer to do stuff" without them calling the FBI? I'm exaggerating, of course, but you are going to have trouble convincing regular users to do this.
That being said, assuming that it's only mining when I'm actively engaged in the application(to not waste excessive amounts of electricity), I'd approve of this as a replacement to ads. The only downside in comparison to ads is using more power(ie, less battery life in mobile).
Also, this is assuming we have smart and pleasant miners that don't peg CPU/GPU to 100% and cause my computer to crawl, but rather target 80% or less resource utilization. And, of course, not mining in the background. Only mining when I'm actively engaging with the application.
Most users would be mining on CPU power, and that means very poor chance to get any results while wasting enormous amounts of electricity.
You should look at the Mining hardware comparison. Summarizing: Best Xeon setups get 66Mhash/s and most common desktop setups go 1-10Mhash/s
Meanwhile, FPGA mining devices reach 1000-10,000Mhash/s and ASIC ones get order of 10,000-60,000 at powers like 600W.
Now to get power comparable to a single ASIC rig you'd need roughly 1000 customers running 24/7 or 33,000 customers running 5h a week.
33,000 CPUs running at full power, zero energy saving, to produce results comparable with a 600W appliance. This is to stay moderately competetive and get *some* ROI.
While the cost is distributed between the customers, the real cost - the amount of energy wasted - is staggering.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Yeah that's definitely going to work out well for the developer :p
What do you think about this?
I'm going to go with "Hell no, with a side of fuck you."
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If you're going to drop cash, why do it indirectly through your electric bill? Just drop the app a buck or two!
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
you assume that network access is not implicitely needed for other app to function.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
GPUs are no longer cost efficient for mining bitcoins, in terms of marginal electricity cost(1). Therefore, it cannot be cost efficient for a person to run the bitcoin mining software on their home machine. Given that it cannot be a cost efficient use of the user's electricity, it is not possible for the user to be engaging in an informed, consensual transaction(2)(3). Transactions without informed consent are market distortions, reduce GDP in the long run, and are not ethical.
1. That may not be strictly true, right now, with the sudden rise in bitcoin price and the lag in bringing new specialized hardware online, but any such brief market distortin resulting in cost efficiency will be optimized away quickly.
2. Except for the possibility that the transaction cost of the user directly paying the software provider is enough to make it inefficient to pay directly, but still efficient to pay for more electricity (a transaction that is already happening, so the transaction cost is sunk) and give the discounted proceeds to the software provider.
3. Or if the user also gets satisfaction from the very act of running the bitcoin mining client, because he or she believes it is worth the personal cost for the social good of helping to process bitcoin transactions.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I'm not sure quite what you're trying to clarify here? If you want to make more money than you currently charge, then charge more than you currently charge. A scheme like the bitcoin mining plan is just an underhanded way to (probably grossly inefficiently) suck money from your customers' inability to calculate the actual costs of the "free" deal. As noted in SharpFang's post below, most customers running on normal hardware will probably be mining bitcoin at a steep loss --- paying much more in energy, both for the computer and air conditioning to remove the excess heat --- than the bitcoins are even worth. Trying to scrape a bit of extra profit with large hidden costs to the customer might be a successful marketing plan, but you're an asshole for doing it. Just be up-front about what you charge; and, if you honestly think your customers would benefit from some better use of their computer's idle time, then give them separate tools to allow them to make that choice for themselves (educated with all the necessary information) --- don't make those choices for them just to pad your bottom line.
Get your schemes right. This is no Ponzi scheme.
At most it's a pump-and-dump.
1. Invest in something (goods, shares, bitcoins)
2. Spread hype or outright lies to cause the price to rise (eg, claim the company you just bought stock in got a massive contract)
3. Sell at the inflated price, and do so quickly before people realise the misinformation.
+1
Folding@Home and SETI@Home have been popular with people wanting to advance science, I'm sure that mining for charities (i.e.: BitCoin@Home) would take off with the OxFam-style crowds. I'm dead against companies building mining into software that's supposed to be doing something else - that takes the decision away from users and is nothing better than a botnet for scammers/spammers.
re: While the cost is distributed between the customers, the real cost - the amount of energy wasted - is staggering.
.
But this is where these kinds of tricks work: when the person authorizing the use of these "utilities" is not the one paying them. This kind of disconnect is how the college kids at U.C. Irvine and U.C. San Diego rack up huge credit card bills because mommy and daddy pay for them so the kids don't have to worry about how much they charge. They even use the cards as an "auto ATM": pick up cash from the other student diners and pay for the meal on your/parents' credit card: instant cash in your pocket while the parents just think that the kids had an expensive meal, since momzy and dadzy eat at very expensive restaurants, a chinese restaurant meal for 10 won't even make them blink or question the cost.
.
Having health care covered by insurance paid for through work while the covered person doesn't even look at or get to see the bill also leads to the same kind of disconnect: no one tries to minimize cost if the cost burden is not fully borne by them or even made fully known to them. In fact, it's the opposite: look at the people running to spend their health benefits by the end of the fiscal year: they know that if they don't buy those eyeglasses or get the dental cleaning by the end of the year, those benefits just vanish into thin air. This bizarre set up leads to this bizarre behaviour.
.
And that's just what will happen at work places or at home for kids: the users of the computers (workers or kids) will okay this cannabilistic/opportunistic software process, while the payer for the electricity consumption (boss/department/company or the parents) won't even see that the overhead costs have jumped up because of this silliness. The costs are lost in the overhead costs' noise!
It's not like mining bitcoin is free. If I'm going to give away my spare Joules and cycles, it wont as profit to some random guys. Even contributing to key cracking projects is better than that.
.: Semper Absurda