[ahmedfromtunis]

I really wish the pay-with-compute model stuck.

Lending webpages some CPU-cycles (probably to mine crypto) in a controlled and safe way would be a win-win(-win) situation.

Websites won't have to submit to their advertising overlords and still be able to incrementally monetize their content.

Users won't have to deal with the downgraded experience — while sacrificing compute cycles anyway to download and display the awful ads.

Even advertisers would win, as they won't have to deal with content farms trying to fake impressions and clicks.

[LikesPwsh]

You'd need someone willing to actually buy the cryptocurrency generated from nothing on the other side of that transaction.

[YetAnotherNick]

Facebook earns $68/user/month[1]. Even if we assume electricity is free, crypto won't come anywhere close on even high end cpu.

[1]: https://i0.wp.com/fourweekmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02...

[crtasm]

Doesn't really work out for anyone running on battery.

[ahmedfromtunis]

If done right, this might actually be more energy efficient than having to download and render all those unoptimized ads.

[Arnavion]

The way it works right now is already efficient. The adblock-enabled browser doesn't spend energy on rendering ads. If the website then blocks the user from the content then the user leaves.

[crtasm]

I'd be interested to see a calculation on how much value could be extracted from the same amount of CPU cycles mining crypto - my gut feeling is it would be orders of magnitude smaller.

[2cynykyl]

This! I'm actually amazed how rarely it gets brought up, even among my techsavy friends. It literally seems like a perfect win-win for everyone...except ad companies. Queue conspiracy theory: they were clearly the ones that coined the term cryptojacking and spawned a ton of articles about in the press when this idea first surfaced.