|
|
|
|
|
|
by petu
10 days ago
|
|
|
> I can imagine it being ten or hundred times more I don't think I average even 2 captchas a day being terminally online, so 10 across every soul in the world sounds way too much for me. (we're ignoring bots it's meant to deter?) > it's hard to see that such a modest energy cost would dissuade any attacks. It's not against targeted attacks, but scrapping. And not about energy cost, but available compute power -- it requires scrapper to use browser with JS (or time commitment to reimplement PoW outside of JS), limits their request rate by CPU core count. |
|
|
You're mixing up checks, fingerprinting, and PoW with a captcha being triggered because those didn't pass. The less abnormal your setup is, the fewer captchas you'll get.
I agree with the rest of what you said.
Also I think you mean "scraper" and not "scrapper".