btw no, cap does not contribute to any "fed botnet". you can build the WASM binaries yourself and compare the hashes. added a clarification about that to the docs.
> Also users may be at a disadvantage as JS crypto would not be optimized for PoW (for example lack parallel crypto capabilities or context switching between calls).
JS crypto is only used as a fallback, Rust WASM is used for solving.
Cap does not send any of the calculated hashes ANYWHERE, the white paper just details a bit how proof-of-work works and I thought that it would be interesting to share.
In case you weren't aware, a blue hat is typically associated with law enforcement in the US. On its own it'd be no problem, but the logo, the paper, and the comment above correctly pointing out concerns/lack of acknowledgement on your site (until now) really comes off as suspicious.
FWIW, I do believe you just made a few unintentional awkward choices instead of being malicious... But a product associated with something like this is a hard sell.
It's not a good practice to commit binary blobs in a repository. And I don't think it would be difficult to add a prepublish step to your npm packages so that you can remove them. The end user shouldn't need to run the build script and compare hashes whenever the source code changes.
Very surprised to get pushback on what I thought was an industry standard lmao
I do think that calling this a CAPTCHA when it's not actually intended to distinguish humans from computers is a bit misleading, but I can see why you would do that
Is that still true? There are so many SPAs out there now that if I were to create a web spider today, I would plan to just render a lot of the pages in a browser rather than fight the status quo. Efficiency wouldn't be my top concern.