
Mozilla founder unveils Bitcoin-based micropayments system for users, publishers - randomname2
https://brave.com/blogpost_3.html
======
scotty79
I think advertisers should pay me directly to show me some ads. That would
incentivise them to show me just ads that have non-zero probability of
succeeding.

Every user could decide, how much information about himself he shares with
advertiser (even up to eyetracking with webcam if user wants) and how high he
prices adspace before his eyes. Advertisers could filter out whom they would
like to serve their ads based on the price and information user was willing to
disclose and past success of the ads that were presented to him.

If we agree that ads are good then most targeted ads that us as much
information each user is willing to share are the best ones. If we agree that
ads are bad, why not just ban them altogether and replace them with one single
directory of stuff and stuff providers where customer would go to when he
needs some stuff.

~~~
frandroid
Great work. Next up, you can resolve how to save the news media industry in
the absence of ad revenue for the publishers.

~~~
bobajeff
I think we need to seriously rethink how news is done. So I'm not too invested
in the news media industry staying alive.

~~~
frandroid
Are you invested in democracy though? Without media, you don't have democracy.

~~~
Afforess
Enough of the motte-and-bailey tactics. Saying 'No Media' therefore 'No
Democracy' is incredibly disingenuous.

~~~
coldtea
Doesn't make it false though.

To have democracy you need to have information that comes with some degree of
ethics and accountability.

Blogs and random outlets ain't that.

------
jlos
I would switch to Brave immediately except for extensions like Lastpass and
Vimium are simply too integral to abandon, however that may change [0].

Ultimately, advertising is a form of inefficiency both for the end-users and
producers. Perfect world, user's are aware of products and services they
do/could/would want without annoying grabs for their attention while
producer's can either reduce prices or focus capital elsewhere. Finding models
that successfully reduce advertising inefficiencies is better for everyone.
Consider how much better the internet is than television and print
newspapers/magazines where you actually pay to consume what contains a
substantial amount of advertisement (over 1/4 for television).

Because advertisement is a necessary efficiency I don't think just blocking
advertisements is really a solution. For now, some model of efficient
advertisement is better than the growing number of bloated and data gathering
websites out there. I don't see any of the other browser vendors making
efforts to move this forward.

Yes, a new browser is annoying and then again perhaps we wouldn't need one if
Mozilla hadn't fired Eich for his political contributions?

[0] [https://github.com/brave/browser-
laptop/issues/253](https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/253)

~~~
brighteyes
He wasn't fired. He quit after industry pressure (boycott from OkCupid and
others) showed Mozilla would suffer greatly if he didn't.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla)

~~~
sangnoir
> He wasn't fired.

About that: have you ever noticed that C-level executives never get fired?
They get to "resign to spend more time with their families". Being forced to
quit is the same as being fired, it just sounds better for PR reasons

~~~
brighteyes
First of all, that is not true. For example, this executive was fired:
[http://recode.net/2016/03/12/longtime-sequoia-capital-vc-
mic...](http://recode.net/2016/03/12/longtime-sequoia-capital-vc-michael-
goguen-is-out-in-wake-of-sexual-abuse-lawsuit/)

Second, while in some cases "spend more time with my family" is clearly an
excuse, in the Eich case there is a much simpler explanation. He founded
Mozilla and cared deeply about it. Boycotts were going to destroy it. Of
course he would step down, it's his only option from his perspective. If he
hadn't, it's very likely Mozilla would not exist today.

~~~
sangnoir
The 'simpler' explanation is not necessarily true: there is simply not enough
information for outsiders to know whether Eich jumped or was pushed. I'd say
the Brave venture shows Mr. Rich is not done with improving the internet yet.

> Boycotts were going to destroy it...it's very likely Mozilla would not exist
> today.

I doubt highly doubt it: around the same time, some folk were threatening to
boycott Dropbox over Condoleeza Rice's role and the board did not equivocate
in their support for her. Dropbox is still around, who knows what would have
happened if Mozilla's board had chosen to support Eich.

~~~
brighteyes
The Mozilla boycotts were actually effective, though, unlike DropBox. All
Firefox users visiting OkCupid were blocked, and very loudly. Boycotts like
that can tank a browser's market share.

------
reustle
I find it hard that people are going to change their primary browser (a big
ask) and post for content, when they can simply continue use their existing
browser, and install an extension ublock origin). Maybe brave plans in having
extensions as well?

~~~
vbezhenar
Users will be paid for watching ads. It's an innovative approach.

~~~
epoch1970
I wouldn't say it's innovative, given the existence of companies like
AllAdvantage [1] or ePIPO [2] well over a decade ago.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllAdvantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllAdvantage)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango_%28company%29#1999.E2.80...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango_%28company%29#1999.E2.80.932001:_Pay-
to-surf_model)

~~~
sudojudo
I used AllAdvantage back in the day, mouse moving script and all. Ran it 14-16
hours a day on a second computer and made $40-$60 a month. Can't complain.

The down-side was the overhead, it was a noticeable strain on my computer,
which is what prompted me to set it up on a dedicated machine. Pretty sure I
was on dial-up then too, which just made things worse.

There was a large group of us on IRC all doing the same thing. Little jerks
like us ruined it for everyone.

~~~
blackrose
I would do the same thing today. Seriously, who wants to spend their mortal
life actually watching ads? Do they actually _enrich_ anyone's life?

~~~
placeybordeaux
I have gotten a couple ads recently that I appreciated, in that they reminded
me of something I meant to buy but forgot about.

------
wyck
A browser that accepts payments that only a tiny fraction of users know how to
use or trust (bitcoin)...for a very technical subset of the market
(demographic), for which this problem doesn't really exist. Outlook not great.

~~~
Joof
Maybe, but consider it as one of many possible solutions we could have for the
'ad-blocking problem'. It's not really clear which solutions will take hold,
but this is ideal for those that block ads for privacy and intrusiveness
reasons.

Its an experiment. This may fail, but bits and pieces of it will be built into
future solutions.

Until they make a serious attempt at it, how will they know what holds back
adoption or what problems they will encounter?

~~~
wyck
Well to be frank, they will know why they failed but it's not very relevant to
anything else.

If you miss a target it doesn't mean you learn how to make the target better.

~~~
Joof
Maybe. Everyone else here seems to think they could do better (or that it
could be done better). I'm sure that's not at all inspired by this attempt.

------
robert_foss
To me this concept seems like [https://flattr.com/](https://flattr.com/) with
bitcoin.

Flattr is stagnant at best, maybe Brave will do better though.

~~~
agorabinary
The problem with micropayments in this context is that flattr lacks the
impulse nature that bitcoin can possibly provide. You have to load the money
in an account beforehand, but with bitcoin you could potentially just donate
directly from a hot wallet on your computer. Pre-loading accounts that are
designed specifically for donations feels unnatural, I think.

~~~
FeepingCreature
> impulse nature

How about reverse-order micropayment for donations? The site lets you start
tipping right away, but doesn't actually pay until you load money. So you can
start using the service right away, and eventually you'll guilt yourself into
actually donating in bulk.

~~~
vonklaus
this is a great idea. maybe even casually prompt you at dollar mark
milestones. e.g.

you viewed 59 applications.

supported by teams totalling 489 people.

running 78 servers.

you didn't see 4900 adverts.

your charity account has reached $5, if you have the time, those teams would
appreciate your support.

~~~
IanCal
Or at the end of the month rather than pre-paying at the beginning. I might be
more willing to chuck in $10 once I know what I've received than I am $5
beforehand. Removes a hurdle when first signing up (just like a free trial
does). There's nothing stopping you asking people to setup something regular
either, just support people putting money in afterwards.

This would add complexity to the backend, but I'd be surprised if it had an
inherently high cost overall. A user that actively uses flattr but doesn't put
any money in each month probably only represents a small overhead in
resources. I guess there's a risk that someone who otherwise would have setup
a regular payment now doesn't (or contributes less).

This feels like one of those ideas that is incredibly obvious in retrospect
but until I'd heard someone suggest it I hadn't thought about it.

------
RoboTeddy
For non-rival goods (which are increasingly common, since copying bits is
cheap), Brave seems like the right kind of model -- users pay an overall tax,
and it gets parceled out to creators proportionally [1] to usage.

[1] or some other function-- e.g. proportionally to sqrt(usage), in order to
flatten out power-law returns, and reward creators who make it but aren't in
the top 10.

------
huuu
Side note: I thought it was a side project of the ING bank because of the
orange lion: [http://www.ing.com/Over-ons/Onze-berichten/Geschiedenis-
van-...](http://www.ing.com/Over-ons/Onze-berichten/Geschiedenis-van-
ING/Geschiedenis-ING-leeuw.htm)

I hope this wont cause any trouble for Brave.

------
Ixio
This is a really interesting model and I hope it catches on with many more
similar initiatives.

Both ads and search engines benefit greatly from greater user profiling. The
path I see for a privacy-sane future is a system where users get to have a
personal program (like the Brave Browser) that manages their information and
acts like a privacy firewall for third party applications.

I look forward to the day when I can search for something without Google and
the likes trying to profile me to give me better results but simply ask in a
anonymized and privacy conscious way a contextualized search query from my
personal private information broker program.

The Brave ad system looks like a first step in the right direction where users
get to control their information.

------
vonklaus
ill say this again. Brave is the best concept executed in the worst way. i
tweeted until eich actually responded just hoping they would take a dif tact.

a browser is almost 100% a commodity wrapped around a search engine. they cant
be decoupled. forking chrome and installing some security makes 0 difference
to isers.

you have to build top notch security but dont expect users to care. fork
apache products & elastic and build a personalizef search engine and browser.
let people use your platform to transact and sell optimization and
information, then the alt currency piece will make sense.

still like brave though. opera of 2016

~~~
azakai
I don't think brave is about security? It's about removing ads (and the
consequences of that).

Ads do matter to users, as if you remove them then the user sees they are no
longer distracting and that things are faster.

~~~
vonklaus
it has a heavy security component which is great one of the women who was a
key hire built one or 2 encrypted communication companies. maybe they scaled
back on marketing, but it is inherently security, privacy focused with the
third value prop being, as you indicated, content control including ad
filtering

------
vbezhenar
What I don't fully understand: are they going to replace google ads with their
own ads? Is it even legal? There are battles whether blocking ads is legal,
but replacing someone's ads with your own ads looks like potential trouble.
Imagine if Google Chrome will adopt that approach.

And if they won't replace other ads but only interact with their partners, I
don't see how that'll work. There are billions of websites, unless they got
some really big contracts, they won't make it.

Interesting project, anyway.

~~~
spacehome
Well, why not? If taking ads out is legal, then why not putting ads in?

What country are you talking about? (Legality of course depends on country.)
What law could they be breaking? And bonus points if there's somebody else
who's ever been prosecuted for something remotely similar.

~~~
bhickey
CleanFlicks was a Utah company that bowdlerized films. The Directors Guild
successfully sued them for copyright infringement.

~~~
sp332
Since there's no copying or redistribution going on, copyright doesn't seem
relevant.

~~~
bhickey
I wouldn't be so sure of this.

ClearPlay, for example, works by marking video frames where unwanted content
appears and then skipping over them during playback. The Family Home Movie Act
2005 carved out an exception for this in 17 USC 10(11):
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110)

There's an analogy between deleting objectionable portions of a film and parts
of a website. I'll ask my copyright attorney friends, I'd bet this is an
unresolved question.

~~~
sp332
Ok. And remember that the copyright holder for the page doesn't own the
copyright in the ads you're blocking, so each copyrighted work might be loaded
in its entirety or not at all.

Other transformations have been done on webpages forever. In fact blocking all
images was a built-in feature of most browsers until a few years ago.

------
Overtonwindow
I think this is a brillaint idea. It's not that I don't like paying for
content. It's that ads on the web have become so intrusive, overbearing,
comumbersome, and, well, BAD, that it has destroyed the browsing experience.
There are no controls. I don't need to be paid, as some have suggested, to be
given ads. However I do want more control over the ads displayed, how they're
displayed, and who benefits. I love this model and I can't wait to direct some
money to better causes.

------
freework
I think if people want to donate money to the creators of content they should
install the Autotip browser extension. It works the same way as Brave, except
it sends the tip on-chain. If you read Brave's documentation, the architecture
of their tipping system has the Brave organization as the midleman who takes a
cut of all donations. Because autotip is completely on-chain, your tip arrives
to the tipee without anyone taking a cut.

------
dahdum
I can't really see this being good for any publisher or advertiser, you're
cutting in two new parties (Brave & the user) and the CPM will tank due to
poor targeting. They'd be better off blocking it and hoping it dies off before
adoption.

Maybe users will flock to it to earn a few pennies in ad replacement mode?
Certainly not for the oppty to pay for ad-free mode.

~~~
kevining
You're cutting out a lot of the people in the middle and can show better ads.
These ads should pay more, and both the publisher and user should make more
than what they make today. (It's not hard to beat current payments to
publishers, and users get no part of the pie right now).

Targeting can be much better if Brave gives the user the option to anonymously
share information with them.

~~~
educar
> Targeting can be much better if Brave gives the user the option to
> anonymously share information with them.

At this point, it's no different from Google.

------
codeisawesome
It's not clear to me if they [include]([https://github.com/brave/browser-
ios/blob/6f4a0c7175990f18bf...](https://github.com/brave/browser-
ios/blob/6f4a0c7175990f18bf162333f76da41e799b939b/brave/src/BraveApp.swift#L6))
Fabric analytics module into their deployments on the iTunes store. If they
do, I think it's really ironic for a browser touting anonymity and non-
tracking to include a tracking module from Twitter, even if "only for crash
monitoring".

In that context, it's hard to take any of their efforts without a pinch of
salt.

------
a_imho
Wow, they are up to a hard problem. Freedom won and people can block anything
they want, how to persuade them buying into our ad network. Seriously? Pay us
not to show ads, is this some new kind of ransomware? >We love browsers What
does this even mean? Then continuing with how ads work in Brave. Selling how
they care about users and being pro ads don't match, sorry. It is sneaky and
disingenuous and defaults you to being a bad actor. Even when you can opt out
ads, all these pro ads nonsense shoveled in your face, makes me want to help
kill ads more quickly, not just seeing them agonizing.

~~~
sp332
Brave is an anti-tracking browser, not an anti-advertising browser.

~~~
a_imho
That is a solved problem already as much as it could be at this point. Ads
people played hardball, now they have to face the consequences. I would rather
call it some kind of adscheme, than a browser, really. And what is the
incentive to buy into someone else adscheme? A pittance? Arrogant and
dishonest. I will not believe they are more concerned about tracking than ad
money for a minute. You can have an anti tracking browser without any kind of
ads, full stop.

~~~
sp332
The problem is that if sites don't get money, they can't afford to produce
content. If you want content, you have to pay for it. This is a way to deliver
ads without tracking.

~~~
a_imho
>This is a way to deliver ads without tracking.

Now we are talking, let's cut the we love browsers PR talk. So we are back to
the financing content discussion again, and they offer disrupting ads with
well, more ads. Because it will be so much better this time if it is them who
make a cut. Users are not that gullible, sorry. There are many more bad
properties of ads, and the pro people try to argue is that they support
content. It is pure fud. Why should I care if some content disappears I would
not pay for anyway? And that is a big if, I would argue declining margins at
most. Yet there are still many other ways to sponsor content (no pun), often
discussed on HN.

------
mirimir
I didn't see estimates of costs for ad-free page views. There's discussion
about letting users prioritize sites for support. But nothing about how much
sites will want to display ad-free content.

------
herbst
I still don't really get it. Why would i as publisher care? If it gives me
some extra BTC without me having anything to do, ok. Sure why not. But it
sounds like i need some obscure verification process and then earn a
laughtable small sum. I rather use non blockable ads with affiliate links.

------
wodenokoto
Offtiopic, but I think it is a real shame that the Gecko API is so unstable
that even a Mozilla founder won't use Gecko for a browser!

~~~
sp332
The Gecko API is so crufty that Firefox has deprecated it.

------
jtw549
Nah...I think I will just stick with my free Ad blocker plus because the
minimum ads that I do get are really not a problem.

------
kwhitefoot
Nice idea but Bitcoin is no good except as a proof of concept. I have to be
able to use Paypal to make this practical.

------
carapace
Damn it this is silly. Just give me a way to send Matt Taibbi a quarter.

------
sebastic
Some feedback:

1\. You really need to remove that picture of Eich. It's just bad. We get it,
he's a visionary who wears suits. Please don't downvote me, it's legitimate
criticism. It's vain and out of touch. A picture of him is fine but one that
is less market-y, more down to earth, isn't trying as hard.

2\. The ad-experience-oriented value-add over existing browsers is too low.
The vast majority of people just want a fast/stable/free browser to search
google and browse Facebook. For the most part they aren't conscious of what
browser they are using. When it comes to web-based tracking/advertising they
either don't care or don't know to care. It's sad but inescapably true.

Additionally, for those who do care about privacy and/or are aware that their
browser is a program they can change, they definitely don't want to pay for an
ad-free experience. Why would someone pay for ad-free Brave when they can use
ad-free Firefox/Chrome for free? If you're going to argue that they can make
money with Brave, how much money are we talking? I'd guess dollars if not
cents, is that worth it?

I really hope the Brave team can realize their project is a mistake before
learning the hard way. There is definitely a more successful thing out there
that they could work on.

~~~
true_religion
Since this really comes down to a question of "who are we appealing to?", I'll
throw my two cents in.

I like that picture. I'm glad for once, that someone in the tech sector is
wearing a suit. I don't view suits as a reflection of personal quality, but I
do like them as a fashion statement.

To be honest, I've never really understood the US motif where wearing a tie
and/or suit is equivalent to being dressed up or out of touch with the common
man.

School children here (and also in the UK), wear ties and blazers so wearing a
tie doesn't feel 'corporate' or stuffy at all to me.

~~~
sebastic
Lots of figureheads in tech wear suits in marketing materials.

Even still, my criticism isn't specifically or especially the suit. That's
just a superficial component of the deeper flaw. It's just looks like it's
trying too hard, doesn't look natural, feels cringy. I mean, who sits on a
bench in a suit by themselves looking ambiguously into the distance while
clasping their hands together? It's weird.

