ok i see your point. my head was in another zone concentrating on other issues not related to this topic, to not see the blindingly obvious of there being no pre-requisite need for websites to 'signup'
i originally was running scenarios based on things like
imagining they were going to work with a select list of websites that will be brave compatible to earn users/website funds. as oppose to braves funding model and clean ads model being open to all sites

yes getting advertisers to agree on any level of income should come first. but a hard hill to climb to make the concept appealing.
but still expect it to change later if the 'service' brave offers becomes too saturated with fund leachers making the quality of views drop while the quantity rises. causing the 'price rate' per view/click to drop

so i hope Brave have done a few formulae and are going to set some upper limit to how much a user can leach, to avoid the downward spiral

"English" (very loosely termed) is only native to:
the UK
north American continent
Australia

total combined populations (~420mill)

English as a first language is spoken by far less people then you think

for instance China alone have 1,380m people speaking Chinese, in just one country, compared to ~420m
for instance India alone have 1,320m people speaking Indian, in just one country, compared to ~420m

and if we really should get knit-picky,
there is always the "tom8o tom@o" debate that proves even Americans are not 'proper' English linguists
there is always the "get an American hill-billy and a British Scouser into a room" debate and see how easily they talk to each other.

and if anyone replies that we should all speak the Queens English.. um.. i'm sorry to inform you, but even she is German.

by the way i am pure white English born raised and bread with many generations before me.. but even i do not speak with an oxford scholars tongue

the great thing about the English language, is that it is adaptable
1f y0u c4n r34d 7h15 7h3n y0u 4r3 4d4p748l3 700
rednaig tihs aslo prevos eniglsh is adbatpale

wrong. the more users the less stable.
think of it like faucets. the more people raiding faucets by clicking links on web pages the less income they get per click
then google stop providing adsense revenue to the website due to the 'clicks' not being of any quality.
which is then a downward spiral
less income to share= more clicks from users to attempt to get income = less income to share =....

many geeks do sig campaigns and raid faucets. and this will be braves downfall.



why implement the payout as soon as possible. they first have to get websites to partner with brave and agree to braves features in exchange for an income. this should be done first, to ensure websites get paid. long before handing funds to users.

again its worth mentioning, if people take the greed hat off and put a business hat on to think about how to run a sustainable business/concept. rushing to hand users funds before the content creators can get paid. is a downward spiral

remember even if you are not handling fiat. gambling licences are about gambling, not the currency used. if you dont believe me research poker chips and realise a poker chip is not fiat. yet las vegas needs a licence even when people gamble poker chips

having the server sat outside of the US is one thing.
but you are not allowed to serve american customers without a licence even if your casino is somewhere else.
satoshi dice learned the hard way and started blocking US ip addresses

you can try to play the game of blocking many countries ip address to remain legit to save on costs. but limit your customer base and possible income

you can try to play the game of selling your house and moving your family to a non-extradition country. and illegally serve Americans and risk getting caught if you accidentally went on vacation to an extradition country they follow you to..

but if you want to serve as many customers as possible and be legit. then there are costs in doing so.

there is however a loophole. making a casino into a service
"play for fun".. where the players never get to cashout.
this is why facebook doesnt need licences because you can buy facebook credits but offers no cash out option, thus deeming facebook poker a game/service instead of a gamble.
but facebook is then in the category of a "service" which my last post said was good. which while you may want to go down that loop hole. you will probably be better off creating a different game or range of games

mining farm - nope, unless you can get rigs at 75% discount(even with free electric)

casinos- nope, the licensing costs will take most of the funding before you even go online

exchanges- nope, the licensing costs will take most of the funding before you even go online

selling products - maybe, but break even may take a while if you bought $1m stock upfront
selling products - yes, but only if you ran the business via a drop shipper so you don't have to pay out on stock initially

selling services - maybe, but break even may take a while if you contracted $1m of employees salary upfront
selling services - yes, but only if that service doesn't require licences or much upfront labour

what i have found as being the most productive viable bitcoin centric business, is conferences. working out the costs upfront, knowing the capacity of the location, and the popularity of the location to know how 'sold out' the event can be. will allow you to price the tickets effectively and the only upfront cost is then reserving the location before being able to sell tickets.

seems from reading the site that the "pots" of funds are locked into Bitgo multisigs(3rd party escrow).
they seem to be concentrating on ensuring websites get paid before making a version where users get paid.
im guessing the 'user gets paid' version is still not finalised.
the method of payout is unclear but i presume there would be an option to save your public address in the browser, so that brave knows where to pay you.

all i can see so far is a scenario of mad rushing for everyone opting to get paid, hardly anyone opting to pay. leading to a competition of clicks to drain the funds into a 1 satoshi per click end game.

they really need to limit payouts to users or it wont be sustainable

viewing the web on normal browsers gives you two options.
see ad's from primary advertisers(option 1) or block ad's from primary advertisers(option 2).

brave, from reading between the lines offers 2 new options when you choose to block standard first party ads(option 2).
A. remain blocked and receive nothing, but you have to pay for this.
B. view 'brave' clean ad's you prefer, and you get paid.

the only issue i see is the payout

the payout comes from, what i can see
people putting funds in, to be able to totally block ad's(option 2: A)
clean advertisers paying to show clean ads to people who chose(option 2: B)
where the funds are shared like this


EG someone pays in $5 to block ads for 1000 websites
it breaks up as
$2.75 - goes to the websites that had ad's blocks(option 2: A). where the share = $0.00275 per site viewed
$0.75 - goes to a pot to pay websites when a users chooses(option 2: B). *
$0.75 - goes to brave
$0.75 - goes to a pot to pay users when a users chooses(option 2: B). *

* where the share can vary depending on how many users choose the option and how many sites those users click

yet if everyone (usual the penny pinching sig campaigners and faucet raider mindset people) wanted a payday( option 2: B) they will be left fighting over the small pot of funds.
the more sites they click, the more users wanting a payday, the less of a 'share' they get.

imagine for every 1 person putting in $5 and go for(option 2: A) there were 99 users going for (option 2: B)
now we have 99 people fighting over 75cents.

those 99 people are going to speed click through sites to get a bigger tally of sites viewed compared to other (option 2: B) people. in hopes of getting a bigger share of the 75cents (same game physics as mining hashrate competition for share of the block reward pot)

resulting in more clicking and more diluting the share of the pot. which as a side effect also means the website receiving the constant barrage of clicks from raiders causing the websites to get higher bandwidth but less back per click.

also as a secondary effect, the income the website would get from primary advertisers(option 1) would decline too.
this is due to the primary advertisers(option1) seeing alexa rankings/google analytics of high views due to the fund raiders trying to cheat, causing the site to be deemed as lacking 'quality' clicks, so the site gets demoted and receives less per click from genuine option 1 advertisers.

so i hope brave has formulated alot of use case scenarios and done alot of predictive maths to ensure a fair income for websites and limit the income of fund raiders, otherwise it wont be sustainable

reading braves website - https://brave.com/


seems more about users paying in. to be able to block adverts while still helping websites get some funding. rather than users getting funds.
however reading the OP. there may be a "cashback" scheme by users allowing adverts, users get 15% back

i agree, we should have many varients of nodes.
technical ones that dont have much of a GUI because API calls and command prompts are better- for technical people
friendly ones that have GUI with one click solutions because they are better- for average joe

along with ensuring that no dev team dominates.

just having "core" nodes as the dominant node doesnt solve anything for security or usability
or on the flipside
just having "user-friendly" nodes as the dominant node doesnt solve anything for security or usability

here we go again..the doomsday dreamer not reading the point.

i personally prefer thousands of independent and moral nodes where everyone is honest.. to avoid such issues as lauda raises, and other issues lauda has not raised..
but in a scenario of no sybil attack ability.. 3 nodes could functionally allow the network to continue.

because 3 moral and independent nodes is better and more secure then 5000 nodes run by one group(a form of sybil)
but lauda wont accept group dominance being a technical form of sybil, because he cant take off the fanboy hat to think logically that his groups dominance has technical negatives of being the attack he is doomsdaying.

but im digressing.
to avoid sybil is simple

just copied this from the most recent news articles but have not yet read it myself,

hopefully it gives context to what the OP is on about (ill edit it or make new posts as i dig into it)
http://www.concordmonitor.com/cryptocurrency-problem-4989137

in short new hampshire have pigeon holed bitcoin and altcoins into the same category as fiat.

instead of making new CONSUMER protection laws specific to cryptocurrency businesses an treated bitcoin and alts as currency assets. which would have been a good thing to do
new hampshire just wants to make bitcoin just as controlled and corrupt as fiat within the cough 'free state' cough, so that its no longer about creating a consumer protection. but regulating bitcoins use via licences with a false 5% context of being part of existing consumer protection

governments need to separate the word regulation from consumer protection. as they are not the same thing.

coins101
its worth noting that when talking to core fanboys such as yayaya.. they use all the real reasons to hate core, but twists them to falsely make other dev groups look guilty of the same act just to falsely make core look innocent.
yet people see through that plan, but core fanboys still dont wake up to it.

core=bigblockers(4mb weight)
core=corporate backing(blockstream->PwC->IBM, banks, insurance)
core=altcoin lovers(monero, liquid, sidechains)

the hypocrisy is loud with core fanboys. yet i cannot put it down to core fanboys knowing the hypocrisy of their own words and still spouting it out because they are part of the corporate agenda... but more so they are simple minded and are getting spoon fed the false narratives, and then left to just shout it out like sheep without any thought.

.. for corporations

it would be an IBM logo on the software and then we would have other corporations with patent ownership of LN and sidechains.
while all three corps would work together to price people out of holding funds on bitcoin private keys(tx fee war) to spend onchain and instead sway/force people to lock funds into corporate owned LN hubs and sidechains (multisigs requiring corporate authorisation(signing)).

to: yayayo

lesson one blockstreams desire for 4mb blockweight makes blockstream fanboys the big blockers.
lesson two by quoting one dev team should dominate due to x,y,z you are revealing you want to be dominated.
lesson three look at the dates of when gmaxwell and adam back joined github.. it wasnt 2009, so why blindly pretend they have always been involved.
lesson four. all i can see is social politics rhetoric from you. and no technical understanding of why 5000 nodes running one biased codebase is better/worse than say 1200 nodes running 4 different codebases. with no codebase having more than 25% of the nodes

think long and hard about lesson four. it will enlighten you. it may actually in the research required to understand the subtle point, help you realise the purpose of bitcoin, the purpose of decentralization.

first of all there are over 2 million bitcoin users. lets categorize them as consumers.
then there are under 6000 full node network involved parties. lets call them the infrastructure
then we have the dev groups. lets call them the builders.

we do not need builder PR aimed at the consumers.
we need builder PR aimed at the infrastructure about what options the builders are offering, which would usually be where the builders and infrastructure groups have the debates.
the separately we need infrastructure PR aimed at teaching consumers how they can / should become part of the infrastructure.

just having the builder PR aimed at all consumers just brings in the politics and religious ideology debates and that sidelines the infrastructure debate. where 2million people without much knowledge make alot of white noise so that nothing gets done

the funny thing is devs(builders) successfully had infrastructure debates with miners to make the 51% debate clear, thus now pools know its not safe to own a pool with too much power, and its in pools benefit for economic and security reasons to limit themselves.. yet the same devs(builders) cant even use the same reasoning for their own involvement of the infrastructure to ensure the code is not 51% dominant.

instead they are trying to go political and religious to make the crow of 2m cause white noise while the builders dictate the direction of the infrastructure without giving the infrastructure a choice.

it does not require a network split.
we dont need to add in a flag to force an intentional controversial split like ethereum did "--oppose-dao-fork"

all that is needed is for the "groups" to stop saying bitcoin can only go one direction in favour of the group... and instead all groups to release differing versions
EG
core 0.13.2A - segwit 1mb base 4mb weight
core 0.13.2b - segwit 2mb base 4mb weight

that way all the core fanboys(users/miners/merchants) do not need to defect away from their religion to make a code choice. it removes the social politics/religious flock mindset out of the debate and brings it back to being a pure code upgrade debate

that way a code upgrade can be voted on based on the code. not the religions of each faction

by having lets say atleast 3 groups each with no more then 51% of the node count. and each agreeing as part of CONSENSUS to release code that matches rules they all have BIP'd(proposed) allows better chance for new consensus rules to activate without a network split, without controversy, without people having to defect away from their favourite group. purely on the bases of the new rule activating if there is enough consensus to ensure the new rule works with the most minimal headache.

adam back has been "informally" in control for a while of what mattered (the dictatorship of the code).
austin hill was just the smiling financial face to go on the VC money grab
i always thought of austin as the CFO even if their corporate documents said differently.

it was purely to have a experienced VC heading up investment meetings to get trust from investors.
while adam back done the code dictatorship deals with miners and devs.

it also must be noted that there will obviously be alot of blockstream fanboys raining in to reveal the ass kissing devotions to blockstream which goes against the whole purpose of why bitcoin needed to be invented.
we will see alot of these blockstream fanboys over sell the blockstream employees involvement by pretending blockstream invented bitcoin.

i look forward to laughing at the first blockstream fanboy to oversell adam backs "hashcash" and twist everything to say adam back is possibly satoshi.

i look forward to laughing at the same blockstream fanboys saying how bitcoin cannot survive without corporate control and the dozen corporate paid devs.

though all it is doing is revealing the dictatorship they desire and the utopia of making bitcoin not fit for a zero barrier open payment system. and instead fit to become FIAT2.0 again ruled and controlled by corporations.

i edited my post to be more helpful. but to raise your point. if your going to ask a technical question the "consumers" dont need to learn. then atleast realise your asking something that is beyond the scope of the consumer(user) level and thus requires you to need to understand the background details to ask a background question.

its like consumers dont need to know the secret ingredients of the green ink and paper of a bank note, to use it. but if you want to ask a specific question about how many secret ingredients the ink and paper should have to secure a $1m bank note, its usually best to know why it has secret ingredients, know why green misture was chosen and understand a bit of the printing process. otherwise without the background knowledge all you will need to say is "green" and "paper" as your security level requirement.

obviously the OP himself is advertising his own scam by pretending what he is typing is an email he received.
where in actual fact he is just advertising the address to get people to stupidly send funds to.

reported.