←back to thread

405 points blindgeek | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
jchw ◴[] No.42173090[source]
I hope we can end the CAPTCHA experiment soon. It didn't work.

Phone verification isn't good either, but for as much as I hate phone verification at least it actually raises the cost of spamming somewhat. CAPTCHA does not. Almost all turnkey CAPTCHA services can be solved for pennies.

Solving the problems of SPAM and malicious traffic will be challenging... I am worried it will come down to three possible things:

- Anonymity of users: validating someone's real-life identity sufficiently would make it possible to permanently ban malicious individuals and filter out bots with good effectiveness, but it will destroy anonymity online. In my opinion, literally untenable.

- Closing the platform: approaches like Web Environment Integrity and Private Access Tokens pave the way for how the web platform could be closed down. The vast majority of web users use Google Chrome or Safari on a device with Secure Boot, so the entire boot chain can be attested. The number of users that can viably do this will only increase over time. In this future, the web ceases to meaningfully be open: alternatives to this approach will continue to become less and less useful (e.g. machine learning may not achieve AGI but it's going to kick the ass of every CAPTCHA in sight) so it will become increasingly unlikely you'll be able to get into websites without it.

- Accountability of network operators: Love it or hate it, the Internet benefits a lot from gray-area operators that operate with little oversight or transparency. However, another approach to getting rid of malicious traffic is to push more accountability to network operators, severing non-compliant providers off of the Internet. This would probably also suck, and would incentivize abusing this power.

It's tricky, though. What else can you do? You can try to reduce the incentives to have malicious traffic, but it's hard to do this without decreasing the value that things offer. You can make malicious traffic harder by obfuscation, but it's hard to stop motivated parties.

Either way, it feels like the era of the open web is basically over. The open web may continue to exist, but it will probably be overshadowed by a new and much more closed off web.

replies(15): >>42173427 #>>42173571 #>>42173573 #>>42173636 #>>42173652 #>>42173854 #>>42174051 #>>42174079 #>>42174452 #>>42174502 #>>42174730 #>>42174882 #>>42175601 #>>42175632 #>>42175764 #
mapt ◴[] No.42173652[source]
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.

replies(6): >>42173730 #>>42173910 #>>42173934 #>>42174028 #>>42174563 #>>42188474 #
danaris ◴[] No.42174028[source]
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.
replies(1): >>42181044 #
1. genewitch ◴[] No.42181044[source]
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.