4 ms·
The talk can be taken in two ways. 1) It's a reasonable comparison of centralised and decentralised systems. 2) It's a way to discredit decentralised systems
by glogla 7y ago
The talk can be taken in two ways.
1) It's a reasonable comparison of centralised and decentralised systems.
2) It's a way to discredit decentralised systems so people move to Signal because Moxie is a corporate / government shill or want to be the personal Jesus or something.
Which explanation looks more likely to someone, is mostly based on how they personally trust Moxie. And a lot of people in the community don't consider Moxie trustworthy.
In my personal opinion, this talk made a lot of people angry, precisely because Moxie went to Anarchist club (CCC) and had a talk that can be summarised (again, in my personal opinion) as "give up on decentralisation, give all power to ME ME ME and I'll take care of you, pinky swear." Of course Anarchists don't want to hear that.
But to someone who trusts Moxie or centralised power in general, this might seem like a crazy interpretation.
- iudqnolq 7y ago> And a lot of people in the community don't consider Moxie trustworthy. What gives you that impression? I've heard many cryptographers say a good first step is to "just trust moxie and install his stuff". He's certainly better regarded than Pavel Durov (Telegram).
- shrimpx 7y ago3) Sharing his belief that centralized trumps decentralized for a bunch of practical reasons and of course Signal is going to be a centralized system based on this belief. (I don't necessarily agree with Moxie but I saw his talk as neither of your 2 points.)