4 ms·

The majority of the MobileCoins are available for purchase for non-us persons at https://www.buymobilecoin.com https://www.buymobilecoin.com right now.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Yes, we’re well aware that you would love to sell us those coins you pre-mined. That’s the problem. If Signal was serious about this they would have launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to their users.
- xur17 6y ago
  > If Signal was serious about this they would have launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to their users. Agreed. They either would have launched their own fork and distributed the vast majority to their users, or at the very least chosen an existing project that was fairly well distributed. This makes me believe they primarily did this in return for an incentive from Mobilecoin.
  - Klonoar 6y ago
    What? Marlinspike's been an advisor to MobileCoin from like... the beginning. The article also notes that neither he nor Signal own any actual MobileCoins.
    - hn8788 6y ago
      Signal may not own any MobileCoins, but the CEO of MobileCoin said: > MobileCoin has not yet paid Signal anything for integrating MobileCoin. We intend to donate a great deal of money to Signal over the coming years.
      - Klonoar 6y ago
        Yes, I've read that. I find it a stretch to draw that conclusion though, as if it's some back door deal for funding. For all the criticisms of cryptocurrency (and I have many...), I don't particularly see anything on MobileCoin's work that indicates the usual shady cryptocurrency stuff. I'm not sure it belongs in Signal, but I do think this stuff can be evaluated without people starting conspiracy theories.
        freeone3000 6y ago
        It's literally a quid pro quo? What conspiracy theory do you need here?
        Klonoar 6y ago
        I don't see how it's a quid pro quo for someone like Moxie, with his background, to advise a project for years and then work with them to integrate it given the alignment with regards to privacy initiatives. I find it conspiracy-theory in nature to assume otherwise; I think it could've been handled better from a server source code side but I don't really see why this has to be an assumed bad faith thing.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        It's quid pro quo to include an obscure scam coin out of the blue into an entirely unrelated product, with a public promise from the scam club owners to donate their money to your business. The fact the the owner of signal had already been associated with MobileCoin for a long time makes it worse, not better.
        Klonoar 6y ago
        ...no, the fact that the founder of Signal advised it for years indicates it's not an "obscure scam coin" from out of the blue. If Signal had built this themselves, in house, nobody would bat an eye. You're stretching hard here.
      - ImprovedSilence 6y ago
        In my view there are worse ways to make money from a chat app. Like selling all your users data. Ir worse yet just selling out to FB. At least a crypto scheme can maybe be the cash cow that helps them keep true to the privacy aspect....
        freeone3000 6y ago
        I'm really tired of every single company going through some abusive scam or data harvesting scheme to avoid simply charging me money.
        godelski 6y ago
        Isn't this because most users have decided that charging money is a death sentence? Hell, there's a HN article on this like every month.
        skinkestek 6y ago
        Someone should always take the time to point out to such threads that WhatsApp was running very profitable based on that model without eveb trying. Also feel free to read anything by the Basecamp guys (yep, the guys behind Rails). It won't get you or the investors (another) yacht, but there exist a number of companies that delight their customers and change history far more than many attempted unicorns.
        xorcist 6y ago
        Yet somehow the Wikipedia project has managed to stay afloat during all these years... I'm pretty sure more than one WikiCoin has been pitched too.
        ohyeshedid 6y ago
        Until something goes awry in that crypto scheme and some intelligence agency decides to use that as leverage to undermine the security of Signal. Moxie, on his own, may be resistant to pressure, but when there's a secondary company involved that might be pressured by threats of losing several million dollars... This commingling of business interests means there's more angles of approach, and much more risk exposure.
    - yborg 6y ago
      And what is the downside to them if this isn't entirely true? On one hand you have tens of millions of dollars and potentially a lot more, on the other you have a few angry nerds.
otoburb 6y ago
The slashdot effect triggered Cloudflare’s DDoS protection and is returning errors for that page.
- josh2600 6y ago
  No, this is just what happens when you try to hit the page from a US IP address.
  - Igelau 6y ago
    Why are you blocking the US?
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      I'm guessing because they don't want an SEC investigation into whatever they're running.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      Don’t want to end up in a US prison for the obvious scam they’re running.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      because the US has a long reach in the financial world even into Switzerland (these days). The IRS is on a war path against crypto currently and I think they believe 50% of it is something they can be taxing or is fraudulent. The US government doesn't like things that are hard to track.
fblp 6y ago
There is only a "contact us" link on that page.
woobilicious 6y ago
Will you buy my coins back at a fair price? What value do you provide? at least when I buy vbucks from Epic I know I'm getting fortnite skins with it. Why should we run a node free of charge when you extract all the profits of our efforts? When I see statements like "there's no economic incentive." I read "I want all the profits, and screw everyone else". If you genuinely wanted a decentralized network, then you would provide fair compensation for the added value the node provides against attacks on the network.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Yes, we’re well aware that you would love to sell us those coins you pre-mined. That’s the problem. If Signal was serious about this they would have launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to their users.

xur17 6y ago
> If Signal was serious about this they would have launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to their users. Agreed. They either would have launched their own fork and distributed the vast majority to their users, or at the very least chosen an existing project that was fairly well distributed. This makes me believe they primarily did this in return for an incentive from Mobilecoin.
- Klonoar 6y ago
  What? Marlinspike's been an advisor to MobileCoin from like... the beginning. The article also notes that neither he nor Signal own any actual MobileCoins.
  - hn8788 6y ago
    Signal may not own any MobileCoins, but the CEO of MobileCoin said: > MobileCoin has not yet paid Signal anything for integrating MobileCoin. We intend to donate a great deal of money to Signal over the coming years.
    - Klonoar 6y ago
      Yes, I've read that. I find it a stretch to draw that conclusion though, as if it's some back door deal for funding. For all the criticisms of cryptocurrency (and I have many...), I don't particularly see anything on MobileCoin's work that indicates the usual shady cryptocurrency stuff. I'm not sure it belongs in Signal, but I do think this stuff can be evaluated without people starting conspiracy theories.
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        It's literally a quid pro quo? What conspiracy theory do you need here?
        Klonoar 6y ago
        I don't see how it's a quid pro quo for someone like Moxie, with his background, to advise a project for years and then work with them to integrate it given the alignment with regards to privacy initiatives. I find it conspiracy-theory in nature to assume otherwise; I think it could've been handled better from a server source code side but I don't really see why this has to be an assumed bad faith thing.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        It's quid pro quo to include an obscure scam coin out of the blue into an entirely unrelated product, with a public promise from the scam club owners to donate their money to your business. The fact the the owner of signal had already been associated with MobileCoin for a long time makes it worse, not better.
        Klonoar 6y ago
        ...no, the fact that the founder of Signal advised it for years indicates it's not an "obscure scam coin" from out of the blue. If Signal had built this themselves, in house, nobody would bat an eye. You're stretching hard here.
    - ImprovedSilence 6y ago
      In my view there are worse ways to make money from a chat app. Like selling all your users data. Ir worse yet just selling out to FB. At least a crypto scheme can maybe be the cash cow that helps them keep true to the privacy aspect....
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        I'm really tired of every single company going through some abusive scam or data harvesting scheme to avoid simply charging me money.
        godelski 6y ago
        Isn't this because most users have decided that charging money is a death sentence? Hell, there's a HN article on this like every month.
        skinkestek 6y ago
        Someone should always take the time to point out to such threads that WhatsApp was running very profitable based on that model without eveb trying. Also feel free to read anything by the Basecamp guys (yep, the guys behind Rails). It won't get you or the investors (another) yacht, but there exist a number of companies that delight their customers and change history far more than many attempted unicorns.
        xorcist 6y ago
        Yet somehow the Wikipedia project has managed to stay afloat during all these years... I'm pretty sure more than one WikiCoin has been pitched too.
      - ohyeshedid 6y ago
        Until something goes awry in that crypto scheme and some intelligence agency decides to use that as leverage to undermine the security of Signal. Moxie, on his own, may be resistant to pressure, but when there's a secondary company involved that might be pressured by threats of losing several million dollars... This commingling of business interests means there's more angles of approach, and much more risk exposure.
  - yborg 6y ago
    And what is the downside to them if this isn't entirely true? On one hand you have tens of millions of dollars and potentially a lot more, on the other you have a few angry nerds.

otoburb 6y ago

The slashdot effect triggered Cloudflare’s DDoS protection and is returning errors for that page.

josh2600 6y ago
No, this is just what happens when you try to hit the page from a US IP address.
- Igelau 6y ago
  Why are you blocking the US?
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    I'm guessing because they don't want an SEC investigation into whatever they're running.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    Don’t want to end up in a US prison for the obvious scam they’re running.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    because the US has a long reach in the financial world even into Switzerland (these days). The IRS is on a war path against crypto currently and I think they believe 50% of it is something they can be taxing or is fraudulent. The US government doesn't like things that are hard to track.

fblp 6y ago

There is only a "contact us" link on that page.

woobilicious 6y ago

Will you buy my coins back at a fair price? What value do you provide? at least when I buy vbucks from Epic I know I'm getting fortnite skins with it. Why should we run a node free of charge when you extract all the profits of our efforts? When I see statements like "there's no economic incentive." I read "I want all the profits, and screw everyone else". If you genuinely wanted a decentralized network, then you would provide fair compensation for the added value the node provides against attacks on the network.