[wtallis]

> If you're not okay with them running a miner while you use their site, don't use their site.

The onus is on the site to not serve up content if they don't trust that I'm running their code as-is at full speed. Nothing about the design of the Web says that servers should trust unauthenticated clients or that clients should prioritize the server's wishes over those of the user. Server operators have no standing to complain when a user agent ignores the server's request for the user agent to do something that is against the user's interests.

[phailhaus]

Or I mean, you can just ask if the user is okay with the site running a miner, and if they refuse then don't serve the content. That's what I mean by transparency.

[wtallis]

That works, if you trust the user not to lie when they have every incentive to lie.

[phailhaus]

It's not possible for the user to lie since the miner has to report back to the server with the proof of work that they've done.

[wtallis]

Hardly any website is going to be willing to require non-trivial proof of work before delivering content. It might work for cutting off a streaming video and to a lesser extent as a gate before allowing a large file download, but it's completely implausible for a text-based article. Would-be readers are not that patient.

[TeMPOraL]

You can't; hence you should back it up with tech checking if the user is complying with your requirements.