Absolutely not. Wasting battery power to let somebody else buy into a pyramid scheme is not my idea of a solution.
Ad blockers eliminate paying with attention, and put a big squeeze on paying with privacy. Which makes the leftover choices of money or power quite reasonable.
What site uses the money or power for is nobody's business. Would you not pay journalists if you found out they like losing money on pyramid schemes?
Cryptojacking will become more common the more legit websites use it as a source of revenue. And this specific company / team of developers have been doing very little to stop the malicious use of their javascript. Why support them?
EDIT: By "why support them" I obviously mean, why should a publisher support a team with such wanton disregard for security of the net that they depend on to publish their stuff. I won't read the articles. But their decision to use such a thing isn't a good one and I can criticize it.
If you object, then by all means, don't support them.
The appropriate way to do that is to not read the article. There's no mining if you don't visit.
A coin being mined is controlled, handled entirely by first party, provides no incentive for tracking, etc.
This seems like a huge win.
Yeah, also a haven for hackers and malicious actors...
EDIT: I guess you weren't aware. CoinHive doesn't track the users who sign up for the service. It doesn't collect any information except email address. So malicious actors can easily sign up for the service and deliver the javascript through an XSS vulnerability for example. I thought that's what you meant by "no incentive for tracking".
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/02/13/salon-mines-...