> teaching people about gpg You're moving the goalposts. Teaching people that their chat address has a @hostname component just like their email is easy. (and

> teaching people about gpg You're moving the goalposts. Teaching people that their chat address has a @hostname component just like their email is easy. (and gpg just needs a nice GUI front-end that makes the common cases trivial) > [it's hard] Yes it is. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't a reason to create yet another centralized solution that promises more than it can deliver. So far every centralized communication service with true privacy has ended up either exploiting their users privacy, sold to people who don't care about privacy, or strong-armed by various powers. If you don't build in mitigation to this problem from the beginning, it will never happen. > incredibly difficult to make federation work This is complete nonsense. It's another feature that has to be taken into account, but it isn't harder than any other feature. (I would rate the crypto ratcheting protocols as "incredibly difficult" to get right, not federation) Again, if this isn't built in from the beginning, it will never happen. > Currently you sound like an intiteled[sic] brat Insults are rarely effective rhetoric. > who does not understand the concept of time constraints. I've been designing and implementing network protocols for about two decades, so I'm very aware of what's involved. I'm suggesting that protocols are hard to change once implemented. If federation isn't designed in from the beginning, then this is just another centralized system that is destined to fail. Pursuing the wrong goal is not a good use of time. > you can send them a pull request I still might.