Hosts: Why are web browser crypto mining sites blocked?

[ghost]

Most sites, like jsecoin and coinhive, have a mandatory opt in. While they do have a hidden miner as well, it is sourced from another domain.

[welcome[bot]]

Hello! Thank you for opening your first issue in this repo. It’s people like you who make these host files better!

[lightswitch05]

mandatory opt in

I consider this list my permanent opt-out for not only crypto mining, but also targeted ads and tracking. All these 'opt-in' or 'opt-out' features are all implemented using cookies, which I delete constantly. Blocking them all together is much more permanent, effective, and works cross-device when blocked at a network level.

[StevenBlack]

Thank you for your concern @BackToPyramidOne.

I'm coming to appreciate this as a wedge issue. I'm unsure what to think about it. It's not cut-and-dry, as you point out.

For now I'm very comfortable letting the domain experts here make these tough calls.

Thanks folks.

Closing.

[anudeepND]

@BackToPyramidOne Personally I don't care whether it's opt-in or opt-out. Firstly, as @lightswitch05 said your ad preference will be reset after clearing cookies.

Even ad and analytics companies give you choice to opt-out, would you stop using host files? And they do very very nasty stuff for example AdThink and OnAudience, were actively exploiting built-in password managers on browsers. You can read more about it here

Any information whether it's error logs for "improving their product" (cough Sentry..
cough) or data used for targeted advertising,regardless of opt-put they should be blocked.

[ghost]

This really isnt about ads, this is about an alternative to ads that many website owners implement in order to make a little profit, unintrusively. Ad tracking is a whole 'nother issue.

[kronflux]

Another opinion never hurts.. So in general, I agree these should be blocked. While I fully understand that there are legitimate uses for these types of sites, opt-in or not, I feel uncomfortable with the concept, nor am I completely trusting of the idea that these will be used only as a revenue for websites.

As @StevenBlack said, I believe this is a far more in-depth issue than it seems on the surface. However, generally speaking it seems to have a bad wrap by the IT community as a whole.

[Technetium1]

If you care enough about a site to run a crypto miner for support, then it doesn't seem to be asking much for you to whitelist a domain too. After all, using a miner should be something you get a choice in... right?

[anudeepND]

This really isnt about ads, this is about an alternative to ads that many website owners implement in order to make a little profit, unintrusively. Ad tracking is a whole 'nother issue.

I agree that they have hosting and other costs to cover. However if you want to support them, they'll definitely have other ways to accept money like PayPal, Bitcoin and other cryptos. Also these miners have significant bad effect on portable devices which are battery powered.

[ghost]

@anudeepND guess how many of these viewers will actually go ahead and donate to the dev.

[ghost]

Alright, looks to me like these sites should remain blocked then, considering the effects on battery, etc.

[ghost]

@lightswitch05, just wanted to let you know, its actually implemented using a script from another domain, in the case of coinhive.

[lightswitch05]

But how would the script remember that I have opted out if it does not store a cookie? One great alternative to this is to just not ask users to opt-in if they have their browsers configured to send a 'do not track' signal. Consider the 'do not track' signal as the global opt-out. I know this use case doesn't fit in great for crypto since its not necessarily tracking, but its an option.

Without using the 'do not track' signal, it must store a cookie to remember my selection - a cookie that will be rejected by my configuration. Also, as a 3rd party in this case, a lot of browsers would reject the cookie. Another option is to just ask the user every single time they visit the page - which is essentially the same thing for me since my cookies get blocked. Anyways, asking the user to opt-in to something every single time they visit the page is a very poor user experience, and depending on how its asked, could become close to harassment of the user - which I would argue is an acceptable case to block something in this list.

Anyways, I'm very unhappy with the current implementations of 'opt-out' or 'opt-in' solutions and its not directly related to crypto. One more note, for the list I manage, websites that respect my 'do not track' signal do not get added to my list, because I never see their domain popup as tracking me. So that is some incentive to not add these types of services when the browser sends the 'do not track' signal. I'll step down from my soapbox now 😆

[ghost]

@lightswitch05 it's not a cookie
the script is loaded from another domain, which either searches for a prior cookie or explicitly asks for consent. No cookies are introduced until the user consents to mining.

[ghost]

This is done on a per website basis
The cookie is served when you click 'yes'

[ghost]

for a short period of time i.e a week

take a look at authedmine.com

[lightswitch05]

ok, so the user is asked every time unless they say yes once