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?"

19 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Only if the source code is included by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So that I can remove the Bitcoin bits.

  2. So It's An Indirect Intangible Gamble? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)?

    An interesting idea and definitely one for the mathematicians but simply unsustainable and risky and ... I guess deceptive if you don't point out the small cost to their electrical bill ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So It's An Indirect Intangible Gamble? by rastilin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, I much prefer this method to having to watch ads, so long as the thread's priority isn't so high that it interferes with the running of the machine.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    2. Re:So It's An Indirect Intangible Gamble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if this came along with an airtight guarantee? Like: no tracking, snooping, all Facebook/Twitter/G+ buttons turned OFF until you click to activate them, never selling your info, forever, amen. Just mine us Bitcoins... and only while you're on the site.

      I'll be honest, I would take that deal over the implicit "pay via getting spied on" internet we have today.

    3. Re:So It's An Indirect Intangible Gamble? by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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)?

      An interesting idea and definitely one for the mathematicians but simply unsustainable and risky and ... I guess deceptive if you don't point out the small cost to their electrical bill ...

      Right it's zero sum. pay for it up front or pay for it on the electric bill. It only makes sense when either
      1) there's a scam to be had (e.g. the landlord or company is paying your utility bill)
      2) you can use the heat the electricy is producing for some purpose you needed anyway. That is to say if your computer is sitting next to a space heater then you might as well turn off the space heater and turn on the bit coin engine.
      3) you want to donate your cycles to charity and the charity would be better off with the cycles than a cash donation. (e.g the charity is doing some big calaculation but doesn't want to bother with the hassle of buying and maintaining or admining rented servers.)

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:So It's An Indirect Intangible Gamble? by Benaiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if this came along with an airtight guarantee? Like: no tracking, snooping, all Facebook/Twitter/G+ buttons turned OFF until you click to activate them, never selling your info, forever, amen. Just mine us Bitcoins... and only while you're on the site.

      I'll be honest, I would take that deal over the implicit "pay via getting spied on" internet we have today.

      +5.

      As the family IT guy, most of what I do is fix the damage done by free games. My cousins teenage kids seem to ruin their laptops by installing hundreds of adware programs on their computers which eventually destroy it. Perhaps this would end this trend of destruction.

      However this would create another problem in turn. How would bitware apps fight for your idle processor? If left to their own devices they would get greedy and attach higher and higher priorities to their threads in order to muscle out the competitors app. I guess that you would need like a steam deployment platform running that shared your bitcoins based on the amount of time you spent playing each game?

  3. Sorry, no. by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sorry, no. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you sure I can't change your mind? Malaria kills far more people per year than cancer, and the grid computing project has far fewer participants. It's also a technically simpler problem they're trying to tackle, meaning your compute time will have significantly higher value in the long run.

      (Incoming whooshes in five, four, three...)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  4. No. by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Probably not by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Terrible idea. by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Terrible idea. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're probably right.

      Better to make it a phone app.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  7. Re:What a joke by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3

    I've considered making a game where in the background it operated a bitcoin mining operation for myself like a zombie botnet. I'm sure the idea isn't original at all.

  8. Why play games? by default+luser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet, I much prefer this method to having to watch ads, so long as the thread's priority isn't so high that it interferes with the running of the machine.

    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.

    1. Re:Why play games? by schizz69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because this way kids can get paid for apps with out having to steal their parents credit cards, they just make them pay indirectly through their power bills. Genius!.

    2. Re:Why play games? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because if you're using it professionally in the office, it isn't your bill.

  9. Necessarily Inefficient Transaction (probably) by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:No. by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Oh for Christ's sake by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.