3 ms·
> Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside. So Tox is out. No contest. > That, and the fact that Tox is not a
by Shared404 6y ago
> Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside.
So Tox is out. No contest.
> That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers
This doesn't make sense to me. @ddevault stated that a messenger could store contacts client side. Jami clearly demonstrates this. What does it being mainstream or not have to do with this?
> thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument.
What does this add, except a personal attack? We can see that you think this is a bad argument from the fact that you're contesting it.
- tptacek 6y agoYou can do anything if you relax the constraint that people are willing to use your tool. By that logic, PGP is a perfectly cromulent secure messenger! That's the point of narrowing it down to mainstream messengers. You misread my last sentence. DeVault's post does not make the bogus argument we're discussing. I'm trying to be explicit that I'm not criticizing his post for doing so. If it's an attack, it's an attack on an argument that he didn't make. (If it reads like a personalized attack on an argument that you believe in, I apologize, and will dial it back).
- Shared404 6y ago> You can do anything if you relax the constraint that people are willing to use your tool. I used Jami until I found Matrix. The only reason I shifted was Matrix was more interoperable with other protocols, and riot.im's interface was more like Discord, which is what my circle wanted to use but I refused. Regardless, the threat model for this discussion is one where the targets have the option to use any messenger they want to communicate within themselves. I see no reason why they would be unwilling to use Jami. > PGP is a perfectly cromulent secure messenger! I recognize this is not what you are stating but... PGP + Email + A nice client, yes I would agree, and it checks all of the security and privacy boxes. Edit: Just saw > (If it reads like a personalized attack on an argument that you believe in, I apologize, and will dial it back). It's not that I believe in it per se, but that it reads more aggressively then seems appropriate for a board like HN. That said, I am still a bit of a noob here, so what do I know. That said, I see no reason a messenger couldn't do this, I used one that did for a while.