Add the CoinBlockerLists to uBlock Origin

[ZeroDot1]

Hi,
I am the author of the CoinBlockerLists, and I would be very happy if you would add the list to your addon.
I created an extra list to fight and stop Browserminig.
URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/master/list_browser_UBO.txt

Best regards @ZeroDot1

[BadPackets]

I second this request. @ZeroDot1 maintains the best blocklist to prevent cryptojacking in the browser. New malicious domains are frequently found and routinely added to the CoinBlockerLists.

[uBlock-user]

Why are you blocking the entire domain such as kisshentai.net based on one javascript which can be individually blocked via uBO ? Can't use a list which blocks the entire website just because of one JS.

[happysurf]

The web mining is very dangerous for the users and is an increasing practice today.
I suggest to create a new "Resource Abuse "or "Mining" section on 3rd-party filters tab, with CoinBlockerLists and NoCoin Filter List and maybe others.
These two list are very small, for that don't have impact on UBO performance.
I think must be active by default.
For example, the web site www.bigspeeds.com/service is not cured by the Ublock Origin Resource abuse list, but on the contrary, the CoinBlockerLists fix the mining problem.

[mapx-]

see easyprivacy (default list in uBo) list, mining section: bigspeeds is already there.

bigspeeds is already in resource-abuse list too

[okiehsch]

bigspeeds is also fixed in uBlock-resource abuse list,
uBlockOrigin/uAssets@32032f4#diff-04acddb39c958962e830b71881e4416b

Missed mapx- edit.

[happysurf]

In any case in my opinion is necessary specific (and more efficient) lists for mining.
I don't use Easy Privacy because sometimes break some web sites.

[gorhill]

Observation:

Your list has 40 instances related to coinhive.com: the domain itself and 39 subdomains: api.coinhive.com, js.coinhive.com, w13.coinhive.com, etc.

coinhive.com is already blocked with uBO's default lists. The 39 subdomains are pointless in uBO, as uBO will block all subdomains of coinhive.com with a filter such as ||coinhive.com^ (which is what the hostnames in your list translate to) -- unlike how a OS would interpret a hosts file.

Please make the demonstration that your list actually add value, currently I feel like it would add little to what is already blocked by uBO if you take into account the redundancies from uBO's point of view.

[ZeroDot1]

@gorhill See: https://github.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/issues/127#issuecomment-373088641
The list is very new and I have to test it a little more.

[anewuser]

I believe it'd be a better idea for the community to work on a collective Web Workers whitelist instead of trying to keep up with the random domain names abusers buy every day. Here's a sample from my personal filters:

$csp=worker-src 'none',domain=~facebook.com|~globo.com|~google.com|~mega.nz|~protonmail.com|~r7.com|~speedof.me

[KonoromiHimaries]

adblock has remove CoinBlockerLists and add NoCoin to default
https://blog.getadblock.com/adblock-for-firefox-3-9-0-f41a7e40c6c5

[ZeroDot1]

https://github.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/issues/127#issuecomment-374262087

[flatfish12]

I have tested the list for UBO, and I have come to the conclusion that it is sufficient as I have done it. Every user is able to put certain things that the user wants on the white list.

@ZeroDot1, it's interesting you've closed that issue claiming your list is sufficient for uBO without taking into consideration any of the advice and recommendations provided to you hear (even from the uBO dev).

Your list still contains an incredible number of redundancies and it still blocks entire domains instead of specific scripts. You completely ignored the first point, and you seem to justify the latter by claiming users can just whitelist any sites they want. That is not what a good filter list does. A good resource abuse list would block the scripts causing the resource abuse, not block entire sites.

You claim to be done testing it, so can you now provide evidence or demonstrate your list would add value to uBO like @gorhill asked? If not, you should consider closing this issue.

[zippy5]

@ZeroDot1, I would tend to agree with @flatfish12.

Your list seems far from optimized for uBO.

If anything were to be added, it seems NoCoin would be a better alternative.

[BadPackets]

lol...

Regardless of what the troll accounts say, the CoinBlockerLists, have always been and always will be the best list to stop cryptojacking. If it's not a good fit for uBO, per the requirements stated by @gorhill, that's understandable. For the average user, minerBlock is a better choice anyway.

[zippy5]

Instead of just calling users trolls, perhaps you should address those users concerns. I can only speak for myself in saying I don't generally participate in these repositories. I found a topic I cared about and wanted to voice an opinion, so I created an account.

As for your other comments, could you maybe addres why your list has "always been and always will be the best?" From where I'm standing, it certainly doesn't appear that way (at least in the context of uBO). That's a pretty bold statement to make if you don't have anything to back it up.

Based on @KonoromiHimaries's statement, I'm also curious why AdBlock would have dropped your list in favor of NoCoin if yours is superior?

I'm not suggesting you don't have a good list or that your work isn't appreciated. I'm voicing an opinion that your list does not seem to be a good fit for this project, and I'm asking that you support your claims or fight for the belief that your list belongs in this project.

If that makes me a troll, so be it.

Edit: I incorrectly interpreted your comment as being the author of this list. You can replace all my comments of "your list" with "the list you support and want included."

[gorhill]

I did create a quick script using Firefox scratchpad to remove redundancies from the list (which contains 1,391 hostnames), and this is what I got as a result: https://gist.github.com/gorhill/1a4613677b2c36dd53a2a1fd26f16823 -- 567 hostnames.

I then imported the URL into uBO, which discards duplicates, and the number of network filters went from 76,237 to 76,776. This means the list contains 538 unique hostnames not found in uBO.

So these figures make the case that the list would benefit uBO users.

[zippy5]

Thanks for looking @gorhill! Is there any chance you could share the scratchpad script you used? (there are some other lists I wouldn't mind looking into further)

538 would definitely suggest some benefit, but I would be curious what those 538 hostnames are.

As @uBlock-user mentioned in a previous comment, this list blocks entire sites as opposed to specific scripts. Is that an approach you are ok with/think is the correct way to go?

I don't think the average user should have to (or necessarily even know how to) properly whitelist a domain. Even after doing so, they would be no more protected from coin mining on that site then they would have been without the list to begin with. In other words, is it a good idea to advocate for a list that is willing to say, "this site users a miner, you shouldn't access it at all?"

NoCoin seems like a fairly comprehensive list (now used as an AdBlock default), and at a quick glance, I don't see that it does this.

It also has a list optimized for uBO

[gorhill]

but I would be curious what those 538 hostnames are.

The link is in my comment above.

The Gist for the quick-script: https://gist.github.com/gorhill/b04bb22db1adcd21136b31b0fb6500d9. It could be easily improve to deal with URL to hosts resource instead, and spit out a bit more stats about input/output counts.

[zippy5]

The link is in my comment

My apologies, I thought that was the list with redundancies removed, I'll give it a look.

And thanks for the script, really appreciate it!

[ZeroDot1]

@gorhill It is good to add a function to UBO that removes automatic duplicates.

[zippy5]

@ZeroDot1, if you don't mind the questions, what's the rationale for entirely blocking some sites?

[zippy5]

@ZeroDot1, here are two quick examples to consider:

kickass.cd and thepiratebay.cr, two popular websites. The miners on these sites have already been taken care of by default lists (namely, uBlock filters – Resource abuse and EasyList).

So sure, you have two unique hostnames here, but they provide no added benefit to the user. Instead, they only create a need for users to workaround your list.

[ZeroDot1]

@gorhill The UBO list is ready for use with UBO, please check again if you can include the list in UBO.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/master/list_browser_UBO.txt

[zippy5]

@ZeroDot1, what made you decide to remove thepiratebay.cr and kickass.cd but leave in so many other domains for websites?

[gorhill]

There are still whole sites being blocked in there. I can't have uBO block whole sites just because there is a miner somewhere in it, the proper solution is to block the miner only -- most of the time uBO is equipped to do this. The consequence of blocking a whole site is that the user will disable uBO for the site, not something we want.

[gorhill]

I consider miners to be already well taken care in uBO with two default filter lists: Resource abuse, and EasyPrivacy.

[gorhill]

Instead of thumb-downs, provide cases which demonstrates that default filter lists of uBO are not sufficient. I can't have uBO's stock filter lists become a repository of all filter lists out there.

The following lists are selected by default -- if you really care to inform people accurately, you should point out that uBO is already blocking miners by default, the only open question is whether CoinBlockerLists add to this:

• uBlock filters -- Resource abuse
  • Volunteers address instances of miners not blocked
  • uBO started to deal with miners before any other blockers or any lists existed for these.
• EasyPrivacy

Feel free to open an issue with good faith arguments about why CoinBlockerLists is not redundant to what is already covered by uBO at https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues, the issue tracker here is for developers only.