I was banned from the hCaptcha accessibility account for not being blind (2023)

There is another option.

CAPTCHA is useful only when it is costly to solve. It is a costly signal that this is a real person, or at least is more than 1/10^9th of a real person (you're not running a fully automated spam system).

The postal service also has costs - everybody that wants to move something through the postal service needs to buy a stamp. Transport fees are a 'natural' way to moderate traffic and deter spam.

Various combinations of network architecture and cryptocoinage permit you to invoke transport fees per attempted transmission/login. Sensible ones, if every spam email or login guess costs even 1 penny it becomes prohibitive for most fully automated spam applications. The cryptocoin aspect is specifically about preserving anonymity of private wallet access while permitting the cash-like transactions that stamps enable.

This sounds like the same argument that was made for about 10 years (2000 to 2010) that micropayments would save traditional (print) media in a digital world. It didn't work due to market fragmentation and friction to make a payment.

And, the reality of your fancy idea is that normie users would turn away if they made a mistake on the CAPTCHA and were suddenly presented with a screen "charging" them one pence.

This isn't about "making a mistake on the captcha", this is about charging them one pence for every attempt and just not having a captcha.

It's an entirely different sort of system, and it would require a cordoned off section of the Internet to implement it top-down, but it's technically viable.

The defining insight here is how many orders of magnitude difference there is between the "That price is negligible" threshold for a human being, and the "That price is negligible" threshold for an automated system. Sure there are adoption issues, but for all applications where there are several orders of magnitude difference, such a system makes some degree of sense.

Cryptocurrency micropayments have been proposed and even attempted as a solution to various problems. Hell, there's also Hashcash, an early proposed anti-SPAM measure for e-mail using just proof-of-work. (Since this is just burning CPU though, it probably isn't effective in the modern world of most people using low-power mobile computers and many SPAMers having access to cheap very high power computers. Might serve as a good hurdle for people trying to implement malicious bots, but it will eventually become useless if it is shown to be effective IMO.)

I'm skeptical though. It puts a literal price on abusing a service, but how do you set that price? Is there a guarantee that there's a value high enough to meaningfully disincentivize SPAM but low enough that users, especially users in areas that may have an economic disadvantage, are able to pay it?

That's on top of the other practical problems, such as actually implementing it. I mean, if someone implements it and tries to solve the usability issues involved I would be open to this future, but as it is now, cryptocurrency has disappointed me. In a world with increasing scrutiny towards credit card processors, I was hoping that the silver lining would be that cryptocurrency could at least help mitigate some of the concerns, but there are just too many hurdles right now. (Some of them may be caused by regulation, but to be fair, I think at this point it's hard to blame governments for trying to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges. I'm not happy about silly KYC policies or anything like that, but I am not surprised at all.)

Although solving a captcha can be translated into a monetary cost (often the cost of labour for a human in a clickfarm to solve it for you), the nice thing is that it's still "free" to solve normally.

If you switch to direct payments that are still affordable for routine use by your poorest users, then your rich adversaries can afford to generate orders of magnitude more spam (until we solve unequal wealth distribution globally).

Also, the cost of using a postal service nominally covers its operating costs. The cost of actually transferring a spammy HTTP request over the internet is negligible, but the costs imposed on its receiver are less so (i.e. the cost of responding to it (cpu/ram/disk/bandwidth), second-order costs of lowering the quality of the service for everyone else, etc.).

Don't think it's going to work, except in the smallest forums?

According to a random page on internet [0], companies pay in $2-$6 range per 1000 ad impressions. If one pays $0.01 to bypass captcha and just 10 people see the resulting spam post, that's already $1 per 1000 views - much less than facebook charges. This becomes even more lucrative if the ads are expensive or there will be more than 10 people looking at the ad.

It looks you'll want much higher costs than that, which will make it "too much" for other users.

[0] https://spideraf.com/learning-hub/what-is-the-average-cost-p...

Would be great if the US government somehow facilitated micropayment. Either by creating their own system or removing the capital gains reporting requirements on crypto (maybe up to $10k/year).

If you expect 99% of normal internet users to maintain a crypto wallet of any kind just to access certain websites—even leaving aside the actual cost—you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Relevant Penny Arcade comic responding to the proposal that micropayments will save comic artists - https://pennyarcade.fandom.com/wiki/June_22,_2001

> The postal service also has costs

I don't know about you but even with this cost about 90% of the physical mail I receive is junk mail.

> Sensible ones, if every spam email or login guess costs even 1 penny it becomes prohibitive for most fully automated spam applications.

Do you have a solution for transaction costs? How do you pay a penny without having to pay more than that for the transfer of funds?

> until we solve unequal wealth distribution globally

Is this a joke?

> It puts a literal price on abusing a service, but how do you set that price?

Start with a nominal one and increase it until the spam problem goes away.

Create escape hatches for people who can't afford it, e.g. you can either pay/mine a couple dollars worth of cryptocurrency, or you can have someone who paid vouch for you (but then if either of you spam you both get banned), or you can do some rigorous identity verification which is inconvenient and compromises privacy but doesn't cost money, or (for smaller communities) you ask the admins to comp you and if you're known in the community from other sites then they do it etc.

> I mean, if someone implements it and tries to solve the usability issues involved I would be open to this future, but as it is now, cryptocurrency has disappointed me.

This doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem to solve. To give someone some cryptocurrency you can either send it directly (useful option for advanced or privacy-conscious users) or use a service and then it should be no different than using Paypal et al.

The real problem is the regulations are currently designed to make using it an unreasonable amount of paperwork:

> Some of them may be caused by regulation, but to be fair, I think at this point it's hard to blame governments for trying to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges.

There's a difference between regulating exchanges and regulating users. If you're holding millions of dollars in cryptocurrency then the government is reasonably going to expect you to file paperwork and pay taxes on gains etc. If you're only holding three and four digit dollar amounts worth then they should leave you alone and you shouldn't have to do anything.

In theory you can strike a reasonable balance here where the crypto scammers go to jail but Joe Average doesn't have to file any more tax paperwork to use Bitcoin Cash to buy a pack of gum than to pay in physical cash. We'll see what the new administration does with it.

Well, for solving both the UX and regulatory issues with cryptocurrencies... I'm not optimistic, but I am open to being pleasantly surprised.

On the UX side, I think a huge problem is making it possible for users to participate using a non-custodial wallet with as little risk of data loss or compromised credentials as possible. So it needs to be hardened against ignorance, stupidity, house fires, malware, and social engineering. That is hard. Irreversible transactions greatly up the stakes while increasing the incentive to attack. Do you ever feel a bit nervous about the send address being wrong when you use cryptocurrency?

A thing I didn't mention but is equally important to solve is developer experience. I wish there was a turnkey SDK that took care of most of the technical stuff and just let you use cryptocurrency like it's PayPal. If we had on-chain subscriptions (I think Ethereum can do this?) it could be even more powerful. The technologies offer a ton of possibilities but taking advantage of it correctly and securely feels like a tall order. Dealing with cryptocurrencies feels more serious than dealing with traditional payment processors: you can't undo when you fuck up.

Some of this can be resolved. On the user side, users can keep less value stored in wallets long term... Though this is more cumbersome and less usable. On the developer side, developers can make nodes that can verify transactions but not spend currency... But this can be challenging (I think it's weird to do with Monero for example?) and it closes off some use cases ("escrow" style transactions; Skeb-style commissions would be a good use case.)

If it gets solved I will celebrate as it seems like it would have a lot of positive upsides, but I think you might need to pardon my skepticism: it's been a lot of years and it hasn't gotten that much better. (Granted, it's still pretty new, but the momentum is slower than I would have hoped.)

Why would it be a joke?

Even assuming that uneven distribution is a problem, and that it was possible to make global wealth evenly distributed, it would be such a collosal undertaking that it would necessarily entail massive social upheaval and take a very long time after which the captcha problem would hardly be comparable to what we have now.

None of that is at all relevant to the point I was making. Whether you think extreme wealth inequality is good or bad, for as long as it exists, it makes paying fixed fees a poor alternative to captchas.

"A fine means it's legal if you're rich"

I was moderately into crypto, i mined coins including BTC; and i'll be damned if i am gunna connect my wallet to a browser, or put crypto in an escrow to pay out to avoid captchas. I'm being as polite as reasonably possible, here.

the only way this makes sense is you convert the entire planet to renewable or non-polluting electricity generation, and then when a user is on facebook, youtube, (or watch ads!), a core or 2 of their machine/phone will "mine" crypto, that can then be used somewhere else. The crypto can't be transferable - it must be "burned". Defined: When the site requests some crypto for proof, it says "send to this non-existent address" and then waits for the block to show that your wallet sent crypto to that address. This "burns" the money. In fact, a couple of cryptocurrencies tried to enforce this, as well as "proof of stake" - where if you had enough coins you could "mine" by merely having your wallet "logged in." The former is called "proof of burn"

another thing, no blockchain block publication is fast enough for this. so now we gotta rope in lightning or some other "hack" on top. I knew when i first heard about bitcoin that there was no way that anyone was going to wait 10 minutes for any payment to go through, especially if it's under some moderate amount of money, like $20.

Until we solve the "water is wet" problem domain squatting will continue to be an issue.

Without a definitive resolution to the continuum hypothesis there will be no efficient distributed consensus algorithm.

As long as humanity bears the mark of Original Sin, it will be hard to run a business selling GPL software.

If micropayment is such an amazing solution to these problems, why haven't we seen a working solution after more than 20 years of talking about it? Why doesn't HN have multiple competing micropayment startups? To me, the results speak for themselves.

Another outcome that I could never understand: The original conversation was micropayments for traditional print media that was moving into the digital age. Why didn't they all band together to create an industry standard that defined (and possibly administered) a micropayment system? In the end, paywalls were the solution, and winner-mostly-takes-all when print moved to digital. Look at the decline in medium to small newspapers in the last 20 years in the US. It is devastating, but a few national, major newspapers are doing OK.

Snail mail is a hilarious example, given that spammers are the only ones willing to pay the fees.

You are talking about appreciable micropayments for appreciable amounts of entertainment from small creators.

And I would argue we did get those in the form of subscriptions in Patreon, Onlyfans, Buy Me A Coffee, et al, or in the co-op world of Nebula. We didn't get them down to very low fee structures because we've designed our payment infrastructure with the intent of supporting a profitable company called Visa, Inc, to which we've offloaded a number of different functions of that a government mint / treasury / post office would normally perform. And because lots of revenue on these sites comes from whales, people with outsized income in a country with a great deal of wealth inequality.

What I am talking about is TINY micropayments just for human authentication purposes. Because what we've had so far in the realm of, for example, spam email, involves sending off messages at a CPM of less than a tenth of a penny. Imposing infrastructure which pegs human authentication tasks, normally performed less than ten times a day, at a CPM of ten dollars, can eliminate most applications of automated systems and eliminate the annoyance of captcha, while costing the human less than ten cents. There are no whales in the login space.