Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by IamCarbonMan 3200 days ago
WebAssembly with OpenGL could change this.
2 comments

No it won't. If everyone is mining more efficiently then the difficulty will rise.
Most miners already use GPUs (or ASICs depending on the coin). WebGL would let websites get a relatively larger piece of the pie from dedicated miners.
As it always is with cryptocurrency. It's not sustainable, but at the moment a wasm + WebGL solution is better than plain JS. That's all I meant.
I don't know what they would have to be mining to make cpu's or integrated GPU's make sense, certainly not bitcoin where even if you pay nothing for electricity to are unlikely to be able to do any useful work in the time someone visits your site.
PirateBay probably won't make any money. I'm considering adding this to an online game, which would probably generate a modest income. Video and social media sites could definitely benefit as well.
I think this would be fine as long as you have the users' consent. I suppose you could even give out rewards to players based on how much they contribute. I see this model in a lot of Android games nowadays (although with ads), you are asked to look at an ad/watch a 30 second video, and in return you get a small amount of in-game currency otherwise only obtainable through spending money.
In the discussion yesterday I estimated 2-5 cents per 24 hours of mining on a users machine (based on quoted hashrates and current prices). That's really not much, even if people actively let it run to help and there is a medium efficiency gain to have somewhere.
What game is that? I want to be sure to avoid it if you are planning such scummy tactics.
It's a card game simulator I have yet to publish. I don't really have a lot of money for server uptime, so it's either ads or this. And it won't be on by default. I'm simply offering users a way to support the site if they like using it, without having to view ads or pay directly (it may or may not affect their electricity bill I guess, but to most people an online game using some extra CPU isn't going to have much impact on them at all).
You can't afford $9/month? Don't bother implementing this feature and you earned a few months of uptime.
None of that comment even close to makes sense.

1. My operating costs are more than $9/month. I don't know where you got that presumed feature but it's wrong.

2. There's nothing to implement. You include a library and a few lines of code to start it and you're done.

3. How would not doing something that could potentially make me money, even if only a little bit, save me money? That makes zero sense.

You prefer s/he didn't provide the option? Dude wants to make some money for his/her effort. Chill.
What about what he said implies he's doing it in a scummy way? Something like this, opt in and transparent, would be much preferred over microtransactions or ads, IMO.
They’re mining Monero.