Patrick's use of my CPU cycles for bitcoin
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| djohnston Apr 23, 2012 5:04 PM EDT |
When reading an article on Patrick Quinn's blog, a "Bitcoin Plus Miner" javascript is run, unless one clicks the "Stop" link in the upper right hand corner of the page. I don't know exactly what this script does, but my guess is that it uses a few cycles of the blog reader's CPU(s) for bitcoin mining. I have three problems with his practice. First, that he is doing it at all seems unethical. There is no disclaimer on the page stating that your CPU cycles will be used to his advantage. Second, the fact that one must manually click the Stop link on the page in order for this javascript to stop running on one's computer is an imposition Patrick has imposed on the reader by coming to his blog. Last, but not least, a couple of times after leaving a page on Patrick Quinn's blog, top shows more than one instance of java still running on my computer at very high CPU utilization rates as a result of having visited a page on Patrick's blog. Color me cautious, but I will not visit Patrick Quinn's site again. |
| ComputerBob Apr 23, 2012 5:26 PM EDT |
Is it java or is it javascript? Your comment mentions both. |
| caitlyn Apr 23, 2012 5:29 PM EDT |
It doesn't happen on my system. Currently running Firefox 11.0 on (of course) Linux. |
| djohnston Apr 23, 2012 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is it java or is it javascript? Your comment mentions both. Sorry, Bob, it is java. This site explains what is happening. Quoting:You can embed our Litecoin miner on your website so that your visitors will mine for you. You will not incur additional fees; all we ask is that you make it clear to your visitors that their spare CPU cycles are being used to support your site by mining Litecoin. (emphasis added) @caitlyn, I'm also running FF 11.0 on Linux. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 23, 2012 6:40 PM EDT |
That explains why I didn't notice that behaviour -- I do have Java, but I never enable it. I since I still haven't figured out whether I "believe in" Bitcoin, or even whether it's actually a good idea, that's fine with me (and quite aside from that, I really have to wonder at the concept of "unobtrusively" borrowing other peoples' "spare" CPU cycles to "mine" them). |
| caitlyn Apr 23, 2012 7:49 PM EDT |
Yeah, I don't have Java enabled either. That's why I'm not seeing it. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 24, 2012 1:00 PM EDT |
Would NoScript be handling this? Just curious, I'm on Winders at the moment so I won't dare try the link. |
| patrickjmquinn Apr 24, 2012 1:29 PM EDT |
Ive removed the offending miner, it wasn't generating anywhere near enough to warrant the annoyance to my readers, i do apologize for that, at the time of it going up i didn't have any ads on the site. Sorry guys. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 24, 2012 2:22 PM EDT |
Mr. Quinn, I salute your integrity in coming to discuss the issue. I find the code itself quite fascinating, and I'm surprised that more web sites haven't latched onto it AND hidden it. It would be interesting if some of the larger "bot-net" operators haven't figured this out as a secondary (or maybe primary) use of their nefarious activities. Being on a work machine, I did bop over to see what the script looks like, and it was quite unobtrusive even if it did start winding up my laptop fan. :^) Thank you for taking it down, although I wouldn't object if it were set up for "opt in". |
| patrickjmquinn Apr 24, 2012 2:39 PM EDT |
If none here object to the idea of having an opt in option i could re-enable it in that capacity. But if anyone does it will disappear into the void for good. Hope i haven't put too many people off. Thanks for the feed back guys its much appreciated :) |
| gus3 Apr 24, 2012 2:56 PM EDT |
Note: totally ignorant comment follows. "Opt-in" is usually preferable to "opt-out". It seems to me that, on website matters, the easiest way to provide an "opt-in" is to put something on its own page. In the matter at hand, I think a simple "help me earn some Litecoin" page, with a link to it on the other site pages, would work best. But I don't really know how Litecoin works. |
| djohnston Apr 24, 2012 3:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:If none here object to the idea of having an opt in option i could re-enable it in that capacity. Patrick, If you can make that work, I have no objection whatsoever. My objection was to it being foisted on your site's visitors without any clear and prominent disclaimer. Like gus3, I don't really know how Litecoin works, but I think his idea has merit. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 24, 2012 7:08 PM EDT |
Yes, opt-in is usually perfectly acceptable (depending perhaps on how it is presented). Few would object to a reasonably forthright and not too obtrusive, opt-in. |
| ComputerBob Apr 25, 2012 3:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:Would NoScript be handling this? Just curious, I'm on Winders at the moment so I won't dare try the link.Yes, if your NoScript is configured to forbid Java in Options > Embedding > Forbid Java -- which I think is the default setting. |
| caitlyn Apr 25, 2012 4:05 PM EDT |
"The Good Wife" (one of the very few TV shows I find worth watching) had an episode where the U.S. Treasury Department went after "Mr. Bitcoin", the creator of what they saw as a currency competing with the U.S. dollar. The problem was nobody knew who Mr. Bitcoin was. It was an interesting episode, full of the usual TV gaffes on technology, but well done nonetheless: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/01/16/the-good-wife-seas... |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 25, 2012 4:16 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, that's interesting, because competing isn't illegal. Counterfeiting is. If simply competing was illegal, Canada would be in danger. :^) |
| caitlyn Apr 25, 2012 4:20 PM EDT |
Actually, I believe the point was that competing from within the U.S. is illegal. Canada is another sovereign country. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 25, 2012 4:46 PM EDT |
Again, competing isn't illegal. Only counterfeiting. |
| skelband Apr 25, 2012 4:53 PM EDT |
The growth of local ad-hoc currencies competing with the sovereign currency is an interesting phenomenon arising in many places. The obvious issue that the US government might be interested in, in this case, is taxation, but that is bordering on TOS violation and we don't want to go there, do we? :D Back to the original point, I think most sane users of the Internet these days have pretty much everything locked down, don't they? Noscript, Adblock Plus, JAVA switched off (or better, not installed), cookies disabled by default.... |
| caitlyn Apr 25, 2012 5:45 PM EDT |
Yep, locking down is a good thing. However, I'd substitute sane for knowledgeable. Most users aren't knowledgeable and don't lock down a thing. |
| tracyanne Apr 25, 2012 5:57 PM EDT |
All the ones I have running Linux do... that's about .000001% of all computer users. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 25, 2012 6:57 PM EDT |
Art Money : http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jul/9907moneya... http://localcurrencycouncil.org/index.php/resources/features... (with pictures) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._S._G._Boggs Green/Community Currencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-05-scrip_N.htm |
| patrokov Apr 26, 2012 11:33 AM EDT |
The Liberty Dollar guy was convicted as a terrorist for undermining the US Dollar, but he was trying to pass off Liberty Dollars as the "new" US Dollar at less than market value. (Only the U.S. Government is allowed to do that.) Also, you're technically not allowed to offer something for sale exclusively in a competing currency (Legal tender law). |
| skelband Apr 26, 2012 12:18 PM EDT |
@patrokov: That's a strange definition of a terrorist, unless there is an angle to the story that I don't see. :D |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 26, 2012 1:42 PM EDT |
Patrokov, Von Nothaus' prosecution depended upon photographs of the Liberty Dollar that were deliberately made to look like US coins and bills. The actual receipts and rounds (can't even use the word 'coin') were never shown to the jury. His only mistake was using the word "dollar". Not even "US Dollar", just "dollar". Anyone who has held a one-ounce silver round would know perfectly well that there is nothing to confuse it with a United States quarter. But the prosecution didn't allow that. It had nothing to do with "less than market value". Legal tender law only says that one must accept the legal tender if it is offered in payment, not that no other payment may be accepted. There are many competing currencies. The Anarcho-Jessie Work Hour, Del Valley Silver, several other long running barter and work-hour receipt systems, all perfectly legal. Yes, Skelband, there are huge obtuse angles to this persecution that you don't know about, which I will gladly discuss in private messages due to not wanting to offend various sensibilities. Remember e-Gold? |
| BernardSwiss Apr 26, 2012 6:19 PM EDT |
@patrokov: Thanks, I hadn't heard about the Liberty Dollar fuss. I guess Boggs managed to get by through the combination of only using one side, and by calling it Art (not that the Secret Service considered that kosher, either (they've even confiscated some of his "counterfeits"). Now I'm really wondering-- how do the various community currencies / "green dollars" avoid this harassment? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!