Bitcoin Porn at least notifies their users, but still doesn't give them any choice in the matter.

Nice - you start off by openly insulting me. Saying that an idea is bullshit is really not on the same level as a personal insult. But okay, I guess that's just how you are, right?

Yes. That's where I found out that although it wastes a full core of my Q6600, its hash rate is very much ridiculous.

Please show me these website, I'd gladly see them.
Also, this is not the issue. With the current state of the Bitcoin community, everything here is full of script kiddies. People will take your code and put it on their website and be done with it. It very much makes a difference if the standard implementation/settings has some sort of UI - and may it be a button that links to bitp.it or tells the users that their CPU is used. No need to make this annoying *at all*. But as an inventor of something cool, you also carry responsability. If you release a 0day with a standard implementation into the wild that harms the users, of course you are helping the cause of creating malware. This is not "shoot the messenger".

If the standard implementation has at least some protection, by displaying a graphic or hashes per second or whatever, then I'd say you are correct. You are not to be held responsible if someone takes your software, *removes* the small amount of user information, and then puts it out there. But this went the other way around.

I didn't read the full thing because testing it out myself, on the official bitp.it website, was much much faster. There I could directly see what the CPU usage is. So it was pretty clear.

Correct, and okay, ONE point for you. However: just because current smartphone implementations don't support web workers, this doesn't mean that future generations won't. If this idea is here to stay (and yes, I am in fact afraid so that it will be, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time complaining!), then some people need to think about these obvious consequences like wasted battery life. Plus, laptops are still affected anyways.
So far, I also have to see a website yet that *doesn't* bring one of my CPU cores to 100% when I visit it. And fully uses up both cores when I have two tabs of it open.

Nope, I did not hear about it because it was open sourced. And that link is nowhere to be seen on the bitp.it website, and also not on the first page of this thread, so you are obviously deliperately making it hard for people to find it.
Maybe I'm wrong an it will appear within 24h on the bitp.it website. Let's find out shall we?

I'm curious on how you want to get yourself out of this, or in what way these "big things" will change my mind on any of the arguments I've given so far.

It's not 30% CPU usage. It wastes one full core because it's currently not using multiple threads. It tries to run as fast as it can, and on single-core machines (yes I'm talking about smartphones here!) this is a pretty common scenario.

I'm also not aware of a way to download the source code. On the bitp.it website there is no button, link etc. to do so. I'm guessing there is a way to download it after you sign up, but nothing anyone could know if there is just a generic "sign up enter email here" field on the site. So it's completely obvious that not everyone reads the code, because it is de facto not open source.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against it if it is used in a proper way. But with all the programmer dudes out here: you should know best that you don't want someone else's software to force something on your computer. That is, yes, Malware.

I think it's fine if you allow your users a choice. So far, I have yet to see a website that does this. That's why I'm criticizing what is happening here.

bitp.it was designed as a background script that the user gets no knowledge of. Otherwise there would be some form of notification. There isn't. So this is bad, mhkay?

EDIT: I created a pillory thread in this topic and it has already taken effect: bitp.it was removed from Detexify! So I guess even website owners see this is a bad idea.

As mentioned in the JS miner thread, I would like to collect websites here that use pitp.it or any other form of JS/WebCL miner. The problem is websites that don't ask or even NOTIFY their users that they are using the user's electricity, computational power, and battery life. For really, really bad hash rates even (a few thousand hashes per second on a modern computer, lol!). I believe doing this will massively harm Bitcoin's reputation for the average user, and I want to prevent this by showing website owners using such miners in an illegitimate way that it's not okay.

Note that this thread is not against websites that give their users a choice in this matter. For instance, enabling the user to get rid of ads by mining bitcoins instead is fine if you give your users a choice in this matter. But we certainly don't need an internet where you constantly have to monitor your CPU activity to check if they are mining bitcoins without your consent.

I would encourage everyone to discuss these miners only in the other thread and keep this one for collecting websites. Yes, this is a pillory, as the thread title says.

I'll start:
http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html bitp.it was removed, website owner saw it was a bad idea. That was fast!

I'm afraid of that too, yes.

Still, things like these will effectively prevent Bitcoin from gaining real market penetration. The people using these JS miners right now are as a matter of fact going against the interests of their website users for this - they will feel that it's not worth the hastle, sooner or later. I very much hope that they will LOSE users this way. We should make a pillory thread so that we all know which websites to stay away from. Maybe even Google will mark the sites as "Malware"? I really do hope so! And they have very good reason to do that. After all it's in their interest to prevent their Android users from visiting those websites...

Besides that, I hope that if you compare the gains (a few 0.01 BTC every few days) vs. the losses (in users visiting your website), you will notice that this system has no real benefit. JS is clearly not made for Bitcoin mining.

But who am I talking to... too many people here only want to trade Bitcoin for $$$ anyways! Too many people that aren't the least bit interested in Bitcoin's reputation. I think we shouldn't give these people a forum here to speak out about their wicked plans, anyways.

I agree that this is complete bullshit and a very, very bad idea. This script is now major news on popular German blogger Fefe's page. It is effectively destroying Bitcoin's reputation. Take it down!

Bitcoin is based on the idea that mining is done by users that WANT to mine. *Forcing* other users to mine for you is absolutely awful. Also note that popular browsers like Google Chrome don't even have a JS blocker and once this script is embedded into the other website code, nobody will be able to prevent the miner from running when they want to just normally use the website.
I already see mobile phone companies getting problems because you wasted the user's battery life!

Did anyone figure out the IP adress of the pools used? The only idea I have for preventing this is to prevent the JS miner from connecting with the pool it's mining in. We need a list of pools so that we can block them via an entry in our hosts. This is the only way to stop this effectively, I suppose.

1bitc0inplz, you just made yourself the enemy of the Bitcoin movement.

I just wanted to throw in "NIbble" because it sounds cute. Plus it stands for a half-byte so what the hell. ^^ But I'm not gonna register on that strange Bonus site since even when logging in with OpenID you need to create an account, which I think totally goes against the idea of OpenID.

If you like my idea, feel free to send a few Nibbles my way: 165xtcXSciSXg32y6X43xd81PAqNVGnGzb.

You all are aware that you do not *need* to give any transaction fees?
Sure, this might mean  that your transaction takes some time to get through, but it still works within ~10 blocks usually. I think the height of the transaction also plays into this: the lower the value, the easier it gets through even if no fee is paid.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's how I understood it so far.