15 ms·

Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

414 points by moks 6y ago

sneak 6y ago
> It’s that adding a cryptocurrency to an end-to-end encrypted app muddies the morality of the product, and invites all sorts of government investigative and regulatory meddling: by the IRS, the SEC, FinCEN, and probably the FBI. We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations. We also need to actively reject the status quo in the USA of a complete and total lack of financial privacy. OF COURSE something that brings real privacy to payments is going to be a target for busybody financial regulators, just as the first widespread e2e-encrypted messenger was (iMessage, now backdoored for the FBI). Cryptocurrencies at their core are speech, not property, so it makes perfect sense to enable use of them via a private communications tool.
- creshal 6y ago
  "private payment" ≠ "payment using an ID that can be trivially linked to your phone number on an indelible public record"
  - alexnewman 6y ago
    That’s not how mobilecoin work
    - creshal 6y ago
      Allegedly, if you trust Intel.
    - swiley 6y ago
      You can use it without signal? Why didn't they just integrate with Etherium then?
      - creshal 6y ago
        Because Moxie is involved in mobilecoin and needs to pump it before he can dump it.
  - sneak 6y ago
    There is no indication whatsoever that the messaging service will see any of the end-user cryptocurrency addresses. What makes you make that assumption? They have a perfectly good e2e messaging channel to use; the only party seeing the payment address would be the one paying.
- dd36 6y ago
  Isn’t cryptocurrency inherently public?
  - vageli 6y ago
    The transactions are but the identities of participants are not.
    - creshal 6y ago
      In an ideal world, maybe/hopefully. But Signal is already awful at hiding your identity¹, tying a public key to your already leaky Signal account isn't going to improve anything. ¹: https://technology.inquirer.net/108901/mark-zuckerberg-uses-whatsapp-rival-signal-leaks-show https://technology.inquirer.net/108901/mark-zuckerberg-uses-...
    - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
      Theoretically, yes, but practically? Countries like Germany already legally require you to provide your ID to buy cryptocoins at non shady businesses. So in reality for most people crypto remains perfectly tracable for all time to their identities. But then again, no one uses crypto as a peer to peer currency anyways...
- foobarbecue 6y ago
  Money is not speech. Words are not taxed.
- hestefisk 6y ago
  iMessage is backdoored? Evidence please?
  - sneak 6y ago
    iCloud Backup backs up plaintext of all iMessages from the device to Apple, with Apple keys (non-e2e). It also includes all SMS. This is documented plainly on Apple's iCloud security overview page. The list of things that are end-to-end encrypted is listed. iCloud Backup is not in it. It's on by default on all iOS devices. Apple was to fix this by end to end encrypting iCloud device backups, and (I understand) even had an implementation, but stopped its deployment on request of the FBI to preserve access to phone contents (including iMessage/SMS history). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
    - api 6y ago
      So turn off iCloud backups?
      - sneak 6y ago
        Then your conversation plaintext gets escrowed to Apple via just Bob instead of both Alice and Bob. (Conversations are backed up twice: once by each party.) You'd need everyone you talk to to also disable iCloud Backup. This is pretty unlikely. Easier to just use Signal, where the chat history isn't included in the device backups at all.
        saurik 6y ago
        Signal doesn't--and can't--somehow magically prevent people from backing up their messages insecurely. That they don't support being backed up by normal backup methods on iOS--including highly-secure ones--is a missing feature (and a devastating one at that: people expect to have access to their old messages) more than a security measure. Consider this: the existence of a popular tool that helps people back up their Signal messages wouldn't somehow cause it to be accurate to claim there is a "backdoor" in Signal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sithadmin 6y ago
  Cryptocurrency != speech; it is not at its core some vehicle for transmission of information, or at least, no more so than conventional currency is. Currency, crypto or not, is no more than a marker of value established by a popular consensus. If any sort of currency supports the transmission of information, it’s a secondary effect where the act of transmitting that information is riding on the coat tails of the monetary/asset exchange.
  - sneak 6y ago
    The act of "sending" a cryptocurrency payment is actually the publication of a cryptographic signature.
    - bildung 6y ago
      Sure, but law and regulation doesn't work that way. It's about the intent, not the technicality. That's e.g. the difference between gross negligence, manslaughter and murder, even if someone died in all these situations.
      - sneak 6y ago
        The (IMHO bogus) argument Schneier was making was that it muddles the morality of the situation, not whether or not it is or isn't, or should or should not be illegal: just that it would invite "meddling" (his word).
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > it muddles the morality of the situation For most people, it does. I hold political free speech protections as sacrosanct. I do not have the same view towards dark money. Putting my views and morality aside, the law treats commercial and non-commercial speech differently. Integrating payments lets the government subpoena records (and more) under AML/ATF law. Those laws are powerful and broadly supported. Totally separately, if we take the position that money is speech, then fine. Why the hell not make a one-click “send wallet address” option for a variety of coins?
- nindalf 6y ago
  > We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations ... Cryptocurrencies at their core are speech, not property That's an interesting take. Assuming you're American, maybe you could challenge this in court? Maybe Congress will have an epiphany - all this time they've been regulating inter-state commerce, but it's been inter-state speech the whole time. To resolve this contradiction in the Constitution, they'll likely just disband the Federal Government, ushering in a libertarian utopia. Go for it! We're rooting for you!
  - c-cube 6y ago
    That's a very American idea. Nowhere else would people think that money is speech, especially in the sense of free speech. I guess it joins "corporations are people" in that category of ideas.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations Disagree, but upvoting because clearly articulated. If money is private and money is speech, then taxes aren’t tenable. Would you agree?
capitol_ 6y ago
I see no good way out of this, if someone forks it and removes all that extra attack surface I guess Moxie will fight it, as he doesn't want many compatible clients. And if the crypto features stays in there it will become another avenue for pump-and-dump schemes, so I can no longer recommend it to people without looking like a crypto hustler.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Fight it? How?
  - ddevault 6y ago
    Moxie has a history of being an asshole to anyone trying to make a third-party client. They're prohibited from using the OWS servers, which do not federate (so they couldn't talk to Signal users), and Moxie has attacked third-party software over trademark issues, too. Any Signal fork is likely to be DoA, thanks to Moxie's deliberate actions.
    - growse 6y ago
      Not everyone agrees that protecting a brand and controlling who connects to and uses a service you run and pay for is "being an asshole". Lots of people pretty readily made the choice to move from WhatsApp to Signal when the benefits became clear. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking the client/server and running their own network - if there are meaningful benefits to end users of the fork, there should be no problem picking up traction.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        "Protecting the brand and controlling who connects to your service" is what put Moxie in a position of power from which cryptocurrency garbage could be introduced to scam money from its users. That's all there is to it. I call that being an asshole. Nothing stops you from forking the network, except for the fact that none of the users come along. Signal holds its users hostage. I call that being an asshole. Calling it open source and saying "anyone can fork it!", then threatening legal action against anyone who does just that and dares to mention the word Signal in their documentation? I call that being an asshole. Moxie is an asshole.
henearkr 6y ago
Let's fork Signal.
- brnt 6y ago
  Yesterday I learned that the 'main' fork of Signal, Session, _already_ had a coin mainlined... FFS...
  - henearkr 6y ago
    That's sad... Still, I cannot believe the lack of vision of the founder of Signal Marlinspike. Now Signal will be soon banned. Already democracies were looking for "legit" ways to ban e2ee, but hey they did not even foresee that their best allies would be the app developpers themselves. They don't need anymore to search, they will just have to ban Signal for whatever tax evasion, criminal payments, human exploitation rings, etc. that occur through its blockchain.
jMyles 6y ago
I'm ready to jump over to Element (/matrix). Anybody else?
- prashantsengar 6y ago
  Already there, feels awesome. Just add bridges to all your apps and now you need only Element.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  I can't convince my family to switch over when the UI is so shit.
  - KitDuncan 6y ago
    fluffychat and nio both have good apps similar to whatsapp/telegram
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  We were considering moving from Keybase to Element for a group I’m part of, but the iOS client is bad. Lots of UI bugs that make it borderline unusable. The Android client seemed fine, but iOS is the lion’s share of our membership so the state of the iOS client makes Element a hard pass.
- dunefox 6y ago
  I'm already on matrix. It's decent.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  > jMyles on Aug 9, 2018 [–] > I have recently switched to Riot (built atop Marix, which the author endorses at the end) for some family communications and yeah, I think I do prefer it to Signal. So, there are indeed some matrix fanboys polluting the debate. Pfff. Shame on you.
  - jMyles 6y ago
    Shame upon me? Why? Because I like matrix? I scarcely used it in the past year. And I haven't really used Element at all. ...what's wrong with considering doing so?
jMyles 6y ago
I am very enthusiastic about blockchain tech and its potential for economic healing in the world. But this... this is a horrible idea.
yoelo 6y ago
I find this incredibly offensive. Has there been any deliberation in the Signal community on whether or not this is something that Signal should have?
- detaro 6y ago
  What "Signal community"?
  - yoelo 6y ago
    Good point. My main point is perhaps that this shouldn't be up to one dude that loves crypto assets – that there should be a signal community making decisions.
    - detaro 6y ago
      Being a centrally-guided product over a community project has been an intentional core characteristic of how Signal is run from the start though, so that's pretty much against the principle for it. (outside of the level that companies listen to user community feedback)
    - henearkr 6y ago
      It's already a Free Software. Huge fork in 10... 9... 8...
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        I look forward to replacing Signal with Noise.
        feurio 6y ago
        I shall wait for Ratio
        seanieb 6y ago
        Trevor Perin created both protocols. Noise isn’t an asynchronous messaging protocol. So it won’t replace Signal. WhatsApp use Noise and Signal together.
alexnewman 6y ago
This is the best. We need private payments
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Great. Download a private payment app then.
  - alexnewman 6y ago
    Where?
purple_ferret 6y ago
bullish for mobilecoin
kentiko 6y ago
After convincing all my friends to move from WhatsApp to Signal I am really annoyed about this move. This really damaged the trust I have for Signal. I hope they realize their mistake quickly and drop this idea.
- jayp1418 6y ago
  I think it won't be problematic as if someone doesn't want to create wallet they dont have to. So this payment option will be for only those who wants to enable it.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    It feels scammy and annoying though, making people less likely to accept it, exactly like Keybase and Stellar. First time I got a Stellar email from Keybase I thought it was a literal scam.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      I understand that point - it's the "optics". ...but for users that ignore the crypto feature, I don't see the issue - there is no real negative impact for them.
  - progx 6y ago
    More code, more possible bugs, more updates needed. All that things are not necessary, they could create a separate app "Signal Pay" and everybody who wants it can use that. It made no sense to implement everything in one app.
    - Evan__ 6y ago
      Maybe not from a security perspective, but WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of implementing everything in one app.
      - matoro 6y ago
nindalf 6y ago
Discussion from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713827 Consensus - WTF?
- FlyingSnake 6y ago
  This obsession with crypto killed Keybase for many of it's users and honestly this could be a bad news for Signal.
  - kreetx 6y ago
    The problem with Keybase is that its UI should be a lot more polished. Other than that, how does using cryptocurrencies interfere with chat?
    - sascha_sl 6y ago
      Keybase was a passion project that always had very limited development time. They churned out a lot of proof-of-concept grade features, but never really polished any of them. And then some of the features only would be really useful if they either were backed by a proper commitment or had a selfhostable plan B. The wallet is just one of many parts of keybases focus thrashing.
      - cdelsolar 6y ago
        I just remembered that Keybase sent me random Lumens a while ago that I never touched, and when I just checked back right now, they're actually worth a significant amount? I am sort of shocked. How do I spend this?
        antb123 6y ago
        1) Convert to USDC or another token and spend using https://stellarterm.com https://stellarterm.com or lobstr wallet and send to your bank account 2) Convert to BTC and spend 3) Buy a gift card directly with the xlm 4) Send to someone's bank account in Brazil, Nigeria, Europe, Argentina. Normally using stellarterm or lobstr or solar wallet. 5) Setup AchorUSD wallet, convert to USD and get 10% interest
agd 6y ago
I think there are 3 attitudes towards Signal: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised, and that Moxie runs the show, and that it uses phone numbers etc etc... 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Whatsapp exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Signal is literally the only product I can get my family to use which provides E2E messaging and prevents mass surveillance. But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism.
- gerikson 6y ago
  There's no need to implement a payment mechanism via cryptocurrency. Signal can just create a "pro" version and sell that.
  - agd 6y ago
    AFAIK crypto is the only way to get private and secure payments. Any other payment mechanism wouldn't fit the ethos of Signal.
    - gerikson 6y ago
      What I meant was that Signal can solicit payments as part of their mission. Either through donations, or by selling access to more features. There's no need to involve financing through the use of the product itself, any proceeds of which will not go to Signal anyway.
      - soco 6y ago
        Signal doesn't sell paid features, Signal is adding a payment platform. So future apps and/or users can exchange money/crypto.
        gerikson 6y ago
        Yes, and I would argue, with Schneier, that that's a bad idea, for all manner of reasons, not least that it will widen the legal attack surface by a lot.
firebaze 6y ago
I convinced quite a lot of my friends to switch to Threema. No phone number required, and really open source (https://threema.ch/en/faq/source_code https://threema.ch/en/faq/source_code)
- bildung 6y ago
  Except the server it seems? I only see the various clients on github.
  - sschueller 6y ago
    Like signal, their server code on github is not what they are running.
    - bildung 6y ago
      With signal, there is at least the occosional server code dump. The threema server is closed source.
- dunefox 6y ago
  I would like to do the same, but most of my friends aren't even on Signal. There is no chance in hell that they buy a messenger.
- ddevault 6y ago
  Let's stop making the same mistake over and over again. It is centralized, not federated, and therefore Threema is likely to suffer the same fate.
  - barbiturique 6y ago
    DeltaChat, it's encrypted email that present itself as a chat. You can use your own smtp, or use a existing one. It only needs to be able to create a folder locally and use GPG. ( the smtp, the client app has passed the mom test of installation ) Experience is below signal, but decent.
- 6y ago
mathiasrw 6y ago
With the demands for KYC and the legislation for intermediaries handling money this will not end well unless they use a public ledger with private (and not anonymous) chain of signatures that can be audited.
kreetx 6y ago
Could somebody elaborate the animosity towards being able to pay in Signal, or and perhaps also the animosity towards Signal itself? I use it, seems like an e2ee and uncluttered messaging app that just works.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  With regards to the first, you see, it's an > uncluttered messaging app that just works. Cryptocurrency turns it into a cluttered messaging app, one that gives hackers extra financial incentives to compromise it.
  - kreetx 6y ago
    Perhaps there will be a tab for your wallet, and an extra button to pay. Apart from that - you don't need to use the cryptocurrency parts.
    - dunefox 6y ago
      I don't need to use any cluttered features, yet they are still clutter.
- sschueller 6y ago
  Because instead of supporting the coins that exist (Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethererum, Monero etc.), some better than others, they did their own coin and the creators of that coin own most of it. They could also have just have added a payment API and let anyone develop against that.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  Well it doesn't 'just work' on all platforms or contexts. That's why it's a bit annoying for them to spend dev time on stuff like this, especially when they could have used whatever pre-existing/established coin.
m1ckey 6y ago
If you are looking for alternatives to Signal, check out Threema.
- brnt 6y ago
  Does it have encryption yet?
  - dunefox 6y ago
    When did it not have encryption?
    - brnt 6y ago
      Forever.
      - saurik 6y ago
        I mean, I think has at least had strong end-to-end encryption since I first heard about it three years ago. What is new as of maybe six months ago is that it is finally open source, but it was always highly secure.
      - dunefox 6y ago
        Are you maybe confusing Threema and Telegram?
- ddevault 6y ago
  Threema does not have federation, therefore it suffers from the same fundamental design flaw which allows Signal to abuse its position like this.
kache_ 6y ago
PGP doesn't have this problem
- UweSchmidt 6y ago
  Do you regularly send email with PGP with a circle of friends? How did you get this established? Are you satisfied with the entire procedure?
  - barbiturique 6y ago
    I do communicate with non technical friends thought encrytped email. I made them install DeltaChat. It's a encrypted chat relying on mail
- cuillevel3 6y ago
  Ugh, I hate PGP so much. It's keeping people from interacting securely for over two decades The UI is bad, integration is hard, the chain of trust (it never was a web) is broken, the CLI tools are annoying... but hey let's do crypto parties with other nerds and exchange passports.
  - RIMR 6y ago
    What do you mean the UI is bad? Which one? https://www.openpgp.org/software/ https://www.openpgp.org/software/ Sounds to me like you used a specific piece of PGP software you didn't like or understand. How can you folks care so much about your privacy, but absolutely refuse to understand the tools you are provided that ensure your privacy? You're never going to get it if you demand it be provided in a blackbox app you don't have to think about. ProtonMail uses the PGP standard. Its UI is simple and easy. There's still one issue: You're trusting someone else to do your encryption for you.
    - cuillevel3 6y ago
      I started with PGP in the Nineties, under DOS. Back then it made sense. Though, it certainly was not for everybody. And despite all the crypto parties and what not, it's still not mainstream. And yes it's great that some tools manage to hide PGP, it's not easy to do. The problem, maybe it's not us, maybe it's PGP?
sathishmanohar 6y ago
Sending payments across the world is going to get as simple as sending a text message with or without signal. While I don't agree on the details, Signal is heading in the right direction.
antihero 6y ago
Does Moxie want to just make it really easy to buy cocaine on a night out?
upofadown 6y ago
Signal is really just another in a long line of siloed messengers. Eventually the people running the system do something obnoxious. Such things do not have a future. Any system that has not reached the point that the bits and pieces are controlled by different entities should be considered just a technology demonstration. Signal has never even been close to "the best app we have out there".
nix0n 6y ago
Among people I know, most individuals send money to each other via Venmo. This presents two problems: how to be sure you're sending money to the right person, and, the transaction is data-mined by Paypal. So, having payments inside of Signal actually would solve both those problems (if both people are using Signal). It could also be, that Signal is trying to turn their app into a platform, like WeChat.
- RIMR 6y ago
  1. Do most people actually care enough about PayPal knowing about their Venmo transactions to sacrifice ease-of-use and use a cryptocurrency instead? Is it worth having to endure volatility and have to deal with exchanges just to hide that split restaurant bill? 2. How does using a Cryptocurrency connected to Signal ensure greater confidence that you are transacting with the correct person than using Venmo connected to PayPal?
  - nix0n 6y ago
    1. I care enough to pay cash when possible, even if it means rounding up my share for something like a split restaurant bill. I would hope Signal's implementation makes it so you don't have to worry about volatility or exchanges. 2. This assumes you and your friend are both communicating with each other via Signal.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  I go to a restaurant with some friends. The bill comes and it’s in USD because of course it’s in USD. One guy puts down his card because he plays cc miles games and anyway the waitress doesn’t want to deal with multiple cards. He gets home, logs on to Venmo and requests my share from me—-in USD. I click accept, the money comes out of my bank account, which is in USD because of course it is, and goes into his Venmo account. That’s the last I ever have to think about it. There’s no 1099B coming. Crypto makes this story much, much worse for very little gain.
45ure 6y ago
I am suffering from messaging app fatigue, using WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and iMessage on Android and/or iOS. No sooner than witnessing a significant portion of my contact list migrating to Signal from WhatsApp, after the ToC/privacy debacle, now there is another spanner in the works. Telegram failed with the TON project, trying to mix oil with water, in their attempt at cryptofying their platform. Signal should focus on solidifying their lead, and provide core messaging features with robust privacy, instead of a scattergun approach. Elsewhere, WhatsApp is already attempting to make a come-back with new cross-platform/multi device features, to eat away at all the gains. https://www.androidcentral.com/whatsapp-will-soon-let-you-transfer-chats-between-android-and-ios-devices https://www.androidcentral.com/whatsapp-will-soon-let-you-tr...
- timbit42 6y ago
  Remember 20 years ago when everyone was fatigued from running ICQ, MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messesnger, and Yahoo! Messenger? At least we had Trillian which let us pretend they were all one app.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    ...and we need to get back to open standards. Imagine having 5 different email providers, GMail, Hotmail, etc... that didn't talk to each other. This current situations is dumb.
ruph123 6y ago
Why oh why was it not the first priority to move from phone numbers to random user IDs (like Threema) for identification? And instead come up with a crypto currency integration? This whole crypto coin focus, the BS about the server code and the total inability to address criticism or be transparent about development made me lose hope in the project.
- romanovcode 6y ago
  Because they want to get rich!
- qqii 6y ago
  It should be obvious by now that signal is aiming for a different balance of user friendliness and privacy. At this point it seems unlikely that they'd change their minds on phone numbers.
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
> It’s that adding a cryptocurrency to an end-to-end encrypted app muddies the morality of the product As digital currencies are just digital speech, seems that Schneier has muddied communication vs communication. Although I would have chosen a different cryptocurrency, I don't think they're doing any harm to themselves here.
cuillevel3 6y ago
Sounds interesting. Signal already has the roster and all. I'm happy this won't be another app, that no one will use. I might be able to put off installing the paypal app forever.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
progx 6y ago
I need a secure way to control my smart home, please integrate everything that is needed! Oh and i need a secure key for my car. If you had time, i need password manager within my messenger too. A secure todo list would be great. Not everything you can include into ONE app should be included.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  Won't be complete until it can send mail though.
  - jeroenhd 6y ago
    The chat app is already end to end encrypted, might as well make it implement GPG and send/receive email to truly complete the Signal project.
syrrim 6y ago
>I see no good reason to do this. Secure communications and secure transactions can be separate apps, The reason is pretty clear. Transactions require two parties to both be using the app. If you spin out a separate app, then most people won't have it installed nor be able to use it, and therefore won't be able to transact with it. This leads to a chicken and egg problem: if no one is using the app, then there's no point downloading and becoming familiar with it. By integrating with an existing, popular app in an adjacent space (messaging apps traditionally enable payments as well), they avoid this bootstrapping problem. That said, it seems quite dumb to pick a premined currency to enable all this. That will inevitably raise questions about who stands to gain from the success of the system. Someone should come up with a way to make cryptocurrencies that are worthless for speculators, and only good for paying for things. Then, any new crypto project would have an easy way to avoid accusations of being a pump-and-dump.
- jerry1979 6y ago
  I imagine signal+mob will have an honest foundation-style grant system which will give tons of money to groups that did not get included in the first crypto wave.
illustriousbear 6y ago
99% of the opposition to Signal integrating cryptocurrency payment seems to be from people who generally disagree with the idea of cryptocurrencies (the article has this position). These arguments of course are veiled as keeping the Signal app "pure" and focused on encrypted messaging. I've rarely seen people kick up this kind of fuss with other messaging features so it just reeks of being disingenuous. At least be honest and just say that you disagree with cryptocurrencies, instead of dancing around it with other strange arguments / conspiracies about government attention.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  You can both think cryptocurrencies are a stupid idea and believe that introducing payments into Signal is a bad idea for other reasons. Your assumption that one belief is simply a fig-leaf for the other is not justified. Based on my personal experience, people who are serious about cryptography from a public-policy perspective are likely to have both of those opinions.
  - illustriousbear 6y ago
    My point is completely justified when you read the article attached (and much of the comments here).
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      I'm sure you think that; would you be prepared to explain why? I have read the article.
- plzbo 6y ago
  It's not just opposition to cryptocurrencies per se, the choice of Mobilecoin is also problematic[0]. On top of that you have to trust Intel. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348
  - growse 6y ago
djoldman 6y ago
title is currently: "Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support"
1023bytes 6y ago
If Signal really cared, they would've chosen a better cryptocurrency. MobileCoin is not a "real", decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. All of the initial supply is owned by the MobileCoin foundation and all TX fees go to them. Without this partnership nobody would've cared besides a few speculators.
helen___keller 6y ago
I don't like crypto, but I especially don't like random shitcoins that I've never heard of because they generally are only used for pump-and-dump schemes. Anyways, my trust in Signal seems to be monotonically decreasing over time. Such is how it works, unfortunately.
root_axis 6y ago
I'm a big cryptocurrency skeptic, but if they had used a more reputable coin instead of a pre-mined coin distributed in such a fashion as to enrich the founders, they could have avoided most of this backlash. People who aren't enthusiasts already understand that the raison d'etre of the cryptocurrency landscape is to get rich quick, but these guys got so greedy they've even pissed off the enthusiast community. Unfortunately for Signal, the thrust of its popularity is among those users who have a pet peeve for the term "crypto" used as a shorthand for "cryptocurrency" instead of "cryptography". It'll be interesting to see Signal's public statement in regard to this PR disaster.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Agreed. Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, but it wouldn’t have enriched the founders. Pre-mined altcoin scams have been around so long that everyone in the crypto world knows to avoid them. Building up a dedicated following of people using an encrypted messenger app was a genius way of submarining a pre-mined crypto scam into an unsuspecting userbase. I suspect a lot of us are going back to all of the people we recommended Signal to and revising our recommendations to avoid the cryptocurrency portion of the app.
  - hedora 6y ago
    I honestly don’t see the issue. They picked a crypto coin with a much faster transaction settling time than the alternatives you mentioned, and they’re explicitly discouraging people from using it to store wealth.
    - qqii 6y ago
      Do you have a link to where they're discouraging people to use it to store wealth?
  - hjek 6y ago
    > Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, Those cryptocurrencies have a large energy consumption. I assume that part of the reason to go with MobileCoin is because it's less power hungry.
tomudding 6y ago
I think they could have spent their time better on some much more needed features/improvements, instead of adding a payment system (with imho bad cryptocurrency).
hammock 6y ago
Money is speech.
627467 6y ago
I find this line of criticism more palatable than that of the other front page link[0]. Criticizing the trash(?)coin - and then criticing signal by association - muddies the discussion just like implementing payments in a (seemingly?) private communication tool muddies the mission of signal. Personally I think of transfer of value as important as transfer of speech/information so, it makes sense for signal (or other messengers) to want to include it. But associating themselves with a new project that has had little scrutiny seems to be a mistake because: - people question if this new product won't negatively degrade the privacy assurances that signal has had so far - people will associate plenty of previous cryptoscams to this new effort [0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 6y ago
I just went to Donorbox to cancel my $10 monthly donation. Clearly, they don't need such humble support anymore. What's after cryptocurrency, ads?
- bo0tzz 6y ago
  I'd be much happier about (properly implemented) ads, than about this move.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    Yes. I'd be happy to pay a buck or two per month instead of ads or gimmicks. An old fashioned model but I think they could still make a fortune on that small of a fee alone.
    - ruph123 6y ago
      A whole new industry: CRYPTO ADS!
birracerveza 6y ago
It's good that you added WTF to the title so I can know in advance how to feel about the news. Without it I would have actually needed to actually read the article before forming my opinion, but now I can go into it with the right mindset, or even better skip straight to the comment section already enraged. Thanks! --- Please note that I am complaining about the headline baiting. While I believe that crypto is the future I agree with the sentiment that the way Signal went and did it was poorly handled at best and shady at worst.
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
Isn't April Fools on the 1st?
kybernetikos 6y ago
Payments in chat is inevitable. I think that eventually all chat will have convenient payments or people will stop using it. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean cryptocurrencies, but until the large financial companies get involved (and they are notoriously risk averse), cryptocurrencies are a natural way to do this. As well as secure chat already needing much of the same key management infrastructure that cryptocurrencies need, it also hooks you into social networks - so you could have key recovery schemes where you trust a number of friends to hold portions of your backup keys (somewhat like what you probably do with your real life house keys). Trust, money and communication are all network phenomena, and using the same fabric for them all makes a lot of sense.

414 points by moks 6y ago

> It’s that adding a cryptocurrency to an end-to-end encrypted app muddies the morality of the product, and invites all sorts of government investigative and regulatory meddling: by the IRS, the SEC, FinCEN, and probably the FBI. We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations. We also need to actively reject the status quo in the USA of a complete and total lack of financial privacy. OF COURSE something that brings real privacy to payments is going to be a target for busybody financial regulators, just as the first widespread e2e-encrypted messenger was (iMessage, now backdoored for the FBI). Cryptocurrencies at their core are speech, not property, so it makes perfect sense to enable use of them via a private communications tool.

creshal 6y ago
"private payment" ≠ "payment using an ID that can be trivially linked to your phone number on an indelible public record"
- alexnewman 6y ago
  That’s not how mobilecoin work
  - creshal 6y ago
    Allegedly, if you trust Intel.
  - swiley 6y ago
    You can use it without signal? Why didn't they just integrate with Etherium then?
    - creshal 6y ago
      Because Moxie is involved in mobilecoin and needs to pump it before he can dump it.
- sneak 6y ago
  There is no indication whatsoever that the messaging service will see any of the end-user cryptocurrency addresses. What makes you make that assumption? They have a perfectly good e2e messaging channel to use; the only party seeing the payment address would be the one paying.
dd36 6y ago
Isn’t cryptocurrency inherently public?
- vageli 6y ago
  The transactions are but the identities of participants are not.
  - creshal 6y ago
    In an ideal world, maybe/hopefully. But Signal is already awful at hiding your identity¹, tying a public key to your already leaky Signal account isn't going to improve anything. ¹: https://technology.inquirer.net/108901/mark-zuckerberg-uses-whatsapp-rival-signal-leaks-show https://technology.inquirer.net/108901/mark-zuckerberg-uses-...
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
    Theoretically, yes, but practically? Countries like Germany already legally require you to provide your ID to buy cryptocoins at non shady businesses. So in reality for most people crypto remains perfectly tracable for all time to their identities. But then again, no one uses crypto as a peer to peer currency anyways...
foobarbecue 6y ago
Money is not speech. Words are not taxed.
hestefisk 6y ago
iMessage is backdoored? Evidence please?
- sneak 6y ago
  iCloud Backup backs up plaintext of all iMessages from the device to Apple, with Apple keys (non-e2e). It also includes all SMS. This is documented plainly on Apple's iCloud security overview page. The list of things that are end-to-end encrypted is listed. iCloud Backup is not in it. It's on by default on all iOS devices. Apple was to fix this by end to end encrypting iCloud device backups, and (I understand) even had an implementation, but stopped its deployment on request of the FBI to preserve access to phone contents (including iMessage/SMS history). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
  - api 6y ago
    So turn off iCloud backups?
    - sneak 6y ago
      Then your conversation plaintext gets escrowed to Apple via just Bob instead of both Alice and Bob. (Conversations are backed up twice: once by each party.) You'd need everyone you talk to to also disable iCloud Backup. This is pretty unlikely. Easier to just use Signal, where the chat history isn't included in the device backups at all.
      - saurik 6y ago
        Signal doesn't--and can't--somehow magically prevent people from backing up their messages insecurely. That they don't support being backed up by normal backup methods on iOS--including highly-secure ones--is a missing feature (and a devastating one at that: people expect to have access to their old messages) more than a security measure. Consider this: the existence of a popular tool that helps people back up their Signal messages wouldn't somehow cause it to be accurate to claim there is a "backdoor" in Signal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sithadmin 6y ago
Cryptocurrency != speech; it is not at its core some vehicle for transmission of information, or at least, no more so than conventional currency is. Currency, crypto or not, is no more than a marker of value established by a popular consensus. If any sort of currency supports the transmission of information, it’s a secondary effect where the act of transmitting that information is riding on the coat tails of the monetary/asset exchange.
- sneak 6y ago
  The act of "sending" a cryptocurrency payment is actually the publication of a cryptographic signature.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Sure, but law and regulation doesn't work that way. It's about the intent, not the technicality. That's e.g. the difference between gross negligence, manslaughter and murder, even if someone died in all these situations.
    - sneak 6y ago
      The (IMHO bogus) argument Schneier was making was that it muddles the morality of the situation, not whether or not it is or isn't, or should or should not be illegal: just that it would invite "meddling" (his word).
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > it muddles the morality of the situation For most people, it does. I hold political free speech protections as sacrosanct. I do not have the same view towards dark money. Putting my views and morality aside, the law treats commercial and non-commercial speech differently. Integrating payments lets the government subpoena records (and more) under AML/ATF law. Those laws are powerful and broadly supported. Totally separately, if we take the position that money is speech, then fine. Why the hell not make a one-click “send wallet address” option for a variety of coins?
nindalf 6y ago
> We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations ... Cryptocurrencies at their core are speech, not property That's an interesting take. Assuming you're American, maybe you could challenge this in court? Maybe Congress will have an epiphany - all this time they've been regulating inter-state commerce, but it's been inter-state speech the whole time. To resolve this contradiction in the Constitution, they'll likely just disband the Federal Government, ushering in a libertarian utopia. Go for it! We're rooting for you!
- c-cube 6y ago
  That's a very American idea. Nowhere else would people think that money is speech, especially in the sense of free speech. I guess it joins "corporations are people" in that category of ideas.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> We need to fight against the idea that private payments are any less moral than private conversations Disagree, but upvoting because clearly articulated. If money is private and money is speech, then taxes aren’t tenable. Would you agree?

capitol_ 6y ago

I see no good way out of this, if someone forks it and removes all that extra attack surface I guess Moxie will fight it, as he doesn't want many compatible clients. And if the crypto features stays in there it will become another avenue for pump-and-dump schemes, so I can no longer recommend it to people without looking like a crypto hustler.

henearkr 6y ago
Fight it? How?
- ddevault 6y ago
  Moxie has a history of being an asshole to anyone trying to make a third-party client. They're prohibited from using the OWS servers, which do not federate (so they couldn't talk to Signal users), and Moxie has attacked third-party software over trademark issues, too. Any Signal fork is likely to be DoA, thanks to Moxie's deliberate actions.
  - growse 6y ago
    Not everyone agrees that protecting a brand and controlling who connects to and uses a service you run and pay for is "being an asshole". Lots of people pretty readily made the choice to move from WhatsApp to Signal when the benefits became clear. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking the client/server and running their own network - if there are meaningful benefits to end users of the fork, there should be no problem picking up traction.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      "Protecting the brand and controlling who connects to your service" is what put Moxie in a position of power from which cryptocurrency garbage could be introduced to scam money from its users. That's all there is to it. I call that being an asshole. Nothing stops you from forking the network, except for the fact that none of the users come along. Signal holds its users hostage. I call that being an asshole. Calling it open source and saying "anyone can fork it!", then threatening legal action against anyone who does just that and dares to mention the word Signal in their documentation? I call that being an asshole. Moxie is an asshole.

henearkr 6y ago

Let's fork Signal.

brnt 6y ago
Yesterday I learned that the 'main' fork of Signal, Session, _already_ had a coin mainlined... FFS...
- henearkr 6y ago
  That's sad... Still, I cannot believe the lack of vision of the founder of Signal Marlinspike. Now Signal will be soon banned. Already democracies were looking for "legit" ways to ban e2ee, but hey they did not even foresee that their best allies would be the app developpers themselves. They don't need anymore to search, they will just have to ban Signal for whatever tax evasion, criminal payments, human exploitation rings, etc. that occur through its blockchain.

jMyles 6y ago

I'm ready to jump over to Element (/matrix). Anybody else?

prashantsengar 6y ago
Already there, feels awesome. Just add bridges to all your apps and now you need only Element.
Hamuko 6y ago
I can't convince my family to switch over when the UI is so shit.
- KitDuncan 6y ago
  fluffychat and nio both have good apps similar to whatsapp/telegram
wayoutthere 6y ago
We were considering moving from Keybase to Element for a group I’m part of, but the iOS client is bad. Lots of UI bugs that make it borderline unusable. The Android client seemed fine, but iOS is the lion’s share of our membership so the state of the iOS client makes Element a hard pass.
dunefox 6y ago
I'm already on matrix. It's decent.
johnchristopher 6y ago
> jMyles on Aug 9, 2018 [–] > I have recently switched to Riot (built atop Marix, which the author endorses at the end) for some family communications and yeah, I think I do prefer it to Signal. So, there are indeed some matrix fanboys polluting the debate. Pfff. Shame on you.
- jMyles 6y ago
  Shame upon me? Why? Because I like matrix? I scarcely used it in the past year. And I haven't really used Element at all. ...what's wrong with considering doing so?

jMyles 6y ago

I am very enthusiastic about blockchain tech and its potential for economic healing in the world. But this... this is a horrible idea.

yoelo 6y ago

I find this incredibly offensive. Has there been any deliberation in the Signal community on whether or not this is something that Signal should have?

detaro 6y ago
What "Signal community"?
- yoelo 6y ago
  Good point. My main point is perhaps that this shouldn't be up to one dude that loves crypto assets – that there should be a signal community making decisions.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Being a centrally-guided product over a community project has been an intentional core characteristic of how Signal is run from the start though, so that's pretty much against the principle for it. (outside of the level that companies listen to user community feedback)
  - henearkr 6y ago
    It's already a Free Software. Huge fork in 10... 9... 8...
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      I look forward to replacing Signal with Noise.
      - feurio 6y ago
        I shall wait for Ratio
      - seanieb 6y ago
        Trevor Perin created both protocols. Noise isn’t an asynchronous messaging protocol. So it won’t replace Signal. WhatsApp use Noise and Signal together.

alexnewman 6y ago

This is the best. We need private payments

Hamuko 6y ago
Great. Download a private payment app then.
- alexnewman 6y ago
  Where?

purple_ferret 6y ago

bullish for mobilecoin

kentiko 6y ago

After convincing all my friends to move from WhatsApp to Signal I am really annoyed about this move. This really damaged the trust I have for Signal. I hope they realize their mistake quickly and drop this idea.

jayp1418 6y ago
I think it won't be problematic as if someone doesn't want to create wallet they dont have to. So this payment option will be for only those who wants to enable it.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  It feels scammy and annoying though, making people less likely to accept it, exactly like Keybase and Stellar. First time I got a Stellar email from Keybase I thought it was a literal scam.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I understand that point - it's the "optics". ...but for users that ignore the crypto feature, I don't see the issue - there is no real negative impact for them.
- progx 6y ago
  More code, more possible bugs, more updates needed. All that things are not necessary, they could create a separate app "Signal Pay" and everybody who wants it can use that. It made no sense to implement everything in one app.
  - Evan__ 6y ago
    Maybe not from a security perspective, but WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of implementing everything in one app.
    - matoro 6y ago

nindalf 6y ago

Discussion from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713827 Consensus - WTF?

FlyingSnake 6y ago
This obsession with crypto killed Keybase for many of it's users and honestly this could be a bad news for Signal.
- kreetx 6y ago
  The problem with Keybase is that its UI should be a lot more polished. Other than that, how does using cryptocurrencies interfere with chat?
  - sascha_sl 6y ago
    Keybase was a passion project that always had very limited development time. They churned out a lot of proof-of-concept grade features, but never really polished any of them. And then some of the features only would be really useful if they either were backed by a proper commitment or had a selfhostable plan B. The wallet is just one of many parts of keybases focus thrashing.
    - cdelsolar 6y ago
      I just remembered that Keybase sent me random Lumens a while ago that I never touched, and when I just checked back right now, they're actually worth a significant amount? I am sort of shocked. How do I spend this?
      - antb123 6y ago
        1) Convert to USDC or another token and spend using https://stellarterm.com https://stellarterm.com or lobstr wallet and send to your bank account 2) Convert to BTC and spend 3) Buy a gift card directly with the xlm 4) Send to someone's bank account in Brazil, Nigeria, Europe, Argentina. Normally using stellarterm or lobstr or solar wallet. 5) Setup AchorUSD wallet, convert to USD and get 10% interest

agd 6y ago

I think there are 3 attitudes towards Signal: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised, and that Moxie runs the show, and that it uses phone numbers etc etc... 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Whatsapp exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Signal is literally the only product I can get my family to use which provides E2E messaging and prevents mass surveillance. But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism.

gerikson 6y ago
There's no need to implement a payment mechanism via cryptocurrency. Signal can just create a "pro" version and sell that.
- agd 6y ago
  AFAIK crypto is the only way to get private and secure payments. Any other payment mechanism wouldn't fit the ethos of Signal.
  - gerikson 6y ago
    What I meant was that Signal can solicit payments as part of their mission. Either through donations, or by selling access to more features. There's no need to involve financing through the use of the product itself, any proceeds of which will not go to Signal anyway.
    - soco 6y ago
      Signal doesn't sell paid features, Signal is adding a payment platform. So future apps and/or users can exchange money/crypto.
      - gerikson 6y ago
        Yes, and I would argue, with Schneier, that that's a bad idea, for all manner of reasons, not least that it will widen the legal attack surface by a lot.

firebaze 6y ago

I convinced quite a lot of my friends to switch to Threema. No phone number required, and really open source (https://threema.ch/en/faq/source_code https://threema.ch/en/faq/source_code)

bildung 6y ago
Except the server it seems? I only see the various clients on github.
- sschueller 6y ago
  Like signal, their server code on github is not what they are running.
  - bildung 6y ago
    With signal, there is at least the occosional server code dump. The threema server is closed source.
dunefox 6y ago
I would like to do the same, but most of my friends aren't even on Signal. There is no chance in hell that they buy a messenger.
ddevault 6y ago
Let's stop making the same mistake over and over again. It is centralized, not federated, and therefore Threema is likely to suffer the same fate.
- barbiturique 6y ago
  DeltaChat, it's encrypted email that present itself as a chat. You can use your own smtp, or use a existing one. It only needs to be able to create a folder locally and use GPG. ( the smtp, the client app has passed the mom test of installation ) Experience is below signal, but decent.
6y ago

mathiasrw 6y ago

With the demands for KYC and the legislation for intermediaries handling money this will not end well unless they use a public ledger with private (and not anonymous) chain of signatures that can be audited.

kreetx 6y ago

Could somebody elaborate the animosity towards being able to pay in Signal, or and perhaps also the animosity towards Signal itself? I use it, seems like an e2ee and uncluttered messaging app that just works.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
With regards to the first, you see, it's an > uncluttered messaging app that just works. Cryptocurrency turns it into a cluttered messaging app, one that gives hackers extra financial incentives to compromise it.
- kreetx 6y ago
  Perhaps there will be a tab for your wallet, and an extra button to pay. Apart from that - you don't need to use the cryptocurrency parts.
  - dunefox 6y ago
    I don't need to use any cluttered features, yet they are still clutter.
sschueller 6y ago
Because instead of supporting the coins that exist (Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethererum, Monero etc.), some better than others, they did their own coin and the creators of that coin own most of it. They could also have just have added a payment API and let anyone develop against that.
carmen_sandiego 6y ago
Well it doesn't 'just work' on all platforms or contexts. That's why it's a bit annoying for them to spend dev time on stuff like this, especially when they could have used whatever pre-existing/established coin.

m1ckey 6y ago

If you are looking for alternatives to Signal, check out Threema.

brnt 6y ago
Does it have encryption yet?
- dunefox 6y ago
  When did it not have encryption?
  - brnt 6y ago
    Forever.
    - saurik 6y ago
      I mean, I think has at least had strong end-to-end encryption since I first heard about it three years ago. What is new as of maybe six months ago is that it is finally open source, but it was always highly secure.
    - dunefox 6y ago
      Are you maybe confusing Threema and Telegram?
ddevault 6y ago
Threema does not have federation, therefore it suffers from the same fundamental design flaw which allows Signal to abuse its position like this.

kache_ 6y ago

PGP doesn't have this problem

UweSchmidt 6y ago
Do you regularly send email with PGP with a circle of friends? How did you get this established? Are you satisfied with the entire procedure?
- barbiturique 6y ago
  I do communicate with non technical friends thought encrytped email. I made them install DeltaChat. It's a encrypted chat relying on mail
cuillevel3 6y ago
Ugh, I hate PGP so much. It's keeping people from interacting securely for over two decades The UI is bad, integration is hard, the chain of trust (it never was a web) is broken, the CLI tools are annoying... but hey let's do crypto parties with other nerds and exchange passports.
- RIMR 6y ago
  What do you mean the UI is bad? Which one? https://www.openpgp.org/software/ https://www.openpgp.org/software/ Sounds to me like you used a specific piece of PGP software you didn't like or understand. How can you folks care so much about your privacy, but absolutely refuse to understand the tools you are provided that ensure your privacy? You're never going to get it if you demand it be provided in a blackbox app you don't have to think about. ProtonMail uses the PGP standard. Its UI is simple and easy. There's still one issue: You're trusting someone else to do your encryption for you.
  - cuillevel3 6y ago
    I started with PGP in the Nineties, under DOS. Back then it made sense. Though, it certainly was not for everybody. And despite all the crypto parties and what not, it's still not mainstream. And yes it's great that some tools manage to hide PGP, it's not easy to do. The problem, maybe it's not us, maybe it's PGP?

sathishmanohar 6y ago

Sending payments across the world is going to get as simple as sending a text message with or without signal. While I don't agree on the details, Signal is heading in the right direction.

antihero 6y ago

Does Moxie want to just make it really easy to buy cocaine on a night out?

upofadown 6y ago

Signal is really just another in a long line of siloed messengers. Eventually the people running the system do something obnoxious. Such things do not have a future. Any system that has not reached the point that the bits and pieces are controlled by different entities should be considered just a technology demonstration. Signal has never even been close to "the best app we have out there".

nix0n 6y ago

Among people I know, most individuals send money to each other via Venmo. This presents two problems: how to be sure you're sending money to the right person, and, the transaction is data-mined by Paypal. So, having payments inside of Signal actually would solve both those problems (if both people are using Signal). It could also be, that Signal is trying to turn their app into a platform, like WeChat.

RIMR 6y ago
1. Do most people actually care enough about PayPal knowing about their Venmo transactions to sacrifice ease-of-use and use a cryptocurrency instead? Is it worth having to endure volatility and have to deal with exchanges just to hide that split restaurant bill? 2. How does using a Cryptocurrency connected to Signal ensure greater confidence that you are transacting with the correct person than using Venmo connected to PayPal?
- nix0n 6y ago
  1. I care enough to pay cash when possible, even if it means rounding up my share for something like a split restaurant bill. I would hope Signal's implementation makes it so you don't have to worry about volatility or exchanges. 2. This assumes you and your friend are both communicating with each other via Signal.
bradleyjg 6y ago
I go to a restaurant with some friends. The bill comes and it’s in USD because of course it’s in USD. One guy puts down his card because he plays cc miles games and anyway the waitress doesn’t want to deal with multiple cards. He gets home, logs on to Venmo and requests my share from me—-in USD. I click accept, the money comes out of my bank account, which is in USD because of course it is, and goes into his Venmo account. That’s the last I ever have to think about it. There’s no 1099B coming. Crypto makes this story much, much worse for very little gain.

45ure 6y ago

I am suffering from messaging app fatigue, using WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and iMessage on Android and/or iOS. No sooner than witnessing a significant portion of my contact list migrating to Signal from WhatsApp, after the ToC/privacy debacle, now there is another spanner in the works. Telegram failed with the TON project, trying to mix oil with water, in their attempt at cryptofying their platform. Signal should focus on solidifying their lead, and provide core messaging features with robust privacy, instead of a scattergun approach. Elsewhere, WhatsApp is already attempting to make a come-back with new cross-platform/multi device features, to eat away at all the gains. https://www.androidcentral.com/whatsapp-will-soon-let-you-transfer-chats-between-android-and-ios-devices https://www.androidcentral.com/whatsapp-will-soon-let-you-tr...

timbit42 6y ago
Remember 20 years ago when everyone was fatigued from running ICQ, MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messesnger, and Yahoo! Messenger? At least we had Trillian which let us pretend they were all one app.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ...and we need to get back to open standards. Imagine having 5 different email providers, GMail, Hotmail, etc... that didn't talk to each other. This current situations is dumb.

ruph123 6y ago

Why oh why was it not the first priority to move from phone numbers to random user IDs (like Threema) for identification? And instead come up with a crypto currency integration? This whole crypto coin focus, the BS about the server code and the total inability to address criticism or be transparent about development made me lose hope in the project.

romanovcode 6y ago
Because they want to get rich!
qqii 6y ago
It should be obvious by now that signal is aiming for a different balance of user friendliness and privacy. At this point it seems unlikely that they'd change their minds on phone numbers.

alfiedotwtf 6y ago

> It’s that adding a cryptocurrency to an end-to-end encrypted app muddies the morality of the product As digital currencies are just digital speech, seems that Schneier has muddied communication vs communication. Although I would have chosen a different cryptocurrency, I don't think they're doing any harm to themselves here.

cuillevel3 6y ago

Sounds interesting. Signal already has the roster and all. I'm happy this won't be another app, that no one will use. I might be able to put off installing the paypal app forever.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

progx 6y ago

I need a secure way to control my smart home, please integrate everything that is needed! Oh and i need a secure key for my car. If you had time, i need password manager within my messenger too. A secure todo list would be great. Not everything you can include into ONE app should be included.

johnchristopher 6y ago
Won't be complete until it can send mail though.
- jeroenhd 6y ago
  The chat app is already end to end encrypted, might as well make it implement GPG and send/receive email to truly complete the Signal project.

syrrim 6y ago

>I see no good reason to do this. Secure communications and secure transactions can be separate apps, The reason is pretty clear. Transactions require two parties to both be using the app. If you spin out a separate app, then most people won't have it installed nor be able to use it, and therefore won't be able to transact with it. This leads to a chicken and egg problem: if no one is using the app, then there's no point downloading and becoming familiar with it. By integrating with an existing, popular app in an adjacent space (messaging apps traditionally enable payments as well), they avoid this bootstrapping problem. That said, it seems quite dumb to pick a premined currency to enable all this. That will inevitably raise questions about who stands to gain from the success of the system. Someone should come up with a way to make cryptocurrencies that are worthless for speculators, and only good for paying for things. Then, any new crypto project would have an easy way to avoid accusations of being a pump-and-dump.

jerry1979 6y ago
I imagine signal+mob will have an honest foundation-style grant system which will give tons of money to groups that did not get included in the first crypto wave.

illustriousbear 6y ago

99% of the opposition to Signal integrating cryptocurrency payment seems to be from people who generally disagree with the idea of cryptocurrencies (the article has this position). These arguments of course are veiled as keeping the Signal app "pure" and focused on encrypted messaging. I've rarely seen people kick up this kind of fuss with other messaging features so it just reeks of being disingenuous. At least be honest and just say that you disagree with cryptocurrencies, instead of dancing around it with other strange arguments / conspiracies about government attention.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
You can both think cryptocurrencies are a stupid idea and believe that introducing payments into Signal is a bad idea for other reasons. Your assumption that one belief is simply a fig-leaf for the other is not justified. Based on my personal experience, people who are serious about cryptography from a public-policy perspective are likely to have both of those opinions.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  My point is completely justified when you read the article attached (and much of the comments here).
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    I'm sure you think that; would you be prepared to explain why? I have read the article.
plzbo 6y ago
It's not just opposition to cryptocurrencies per se, the choice of Mobilecoin is also problematic[0]. On top of that you have to trust Intel. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348
- growse 6y ago

djoldman 6y ago

title is currently: "Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support"

1023bytes 6y ago

If Signal really cared, they would've chosen a better cryptocurrency. MobileCoin is not a "real", decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. All of the initial supply is owned by the MobileCoin foundation and all TX fees go to them. Without this partnership nobody would've cared besides a few speculators.

helen___keller 6y ago

I don't like crypto, but I especially don't like random shitcoins that I've never heard of because they generally are only used for pump-and-dump schemes. Anyways, my trust in Signal seems to be monotonically decreasing over time. Such is how it works, unfortunately.

root_axis 6y ago

I'm a big cryptocurrency skeptic, but if they had used a more reputable coin instead of a pre-mined coin distributed in such a fashion as to enrich the founders, they could have avoided most of this backlash. People who aren't enthusiasts already understand that the raison d'etre of the cryptocurrency landscape is to get rich quick, but these guys got so greedy they've even pissed off the enthusiast community. Unfortunately for Signal, the thrust of its popularity is among those users who have a pet peeve for the term "crypto" used as a shorthand for "cryptocurrency" instead of "cryptography". It'll be interesting to see Signal's public statement in regard to this PR disaster.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Agreed. Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, but it wouldn’t have enriched the founders. Pre-mined altcoin scams have been around so long that everyone in the crypto world knows to avoid them. Building up a dedicated following of people using an encrypted messenger app was a genius way of submarining a pre-mined crypto scam into an unsuspecting userbase. I suspect a lot of us are going back to all of the people we recommended Signal to and revising our recommendations to avoid the cryptocurrency portion of the app.
- hedora 6y ago
  I honestly don’t see the issue. They picked a crypto coin with a much faster transaction settling time than the alternatives you mentioned, and they’re explicitly discouraging people from using it to store wealth.
  - qqii 6y ago
    Do you have a link to where they're discouraging people to use it to store wealth?
- hjek 6y ago
  > Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, Those cryptocurrencies have a large energy consumption. I assume that part of the reason to go with MobileCoin is because it's less power hungry.

tomudding 6y ago

I think they could have spent their time better on some much more needed features/improvements, instead of adding a payment system (with imho bad cryptocurrency).

hammock 6y ago

Money is speech.

627467 6y ago

I find this line of criticism more palatable than that of the other front page link[0]. Criticizing the trash(?)coin - and then criticing signal by association - muddies the discussion just like implementing payments in a (seemingly?) private communication tool muddies the mission of signal. Personally I think of transfer of value as important as transfer of speech/information so, it makes sense for signal (or other messengers) to want to include it. But associating themselves with a new project that has had little scrutiny seems to be a mistake because: - people question if this new product won't negatively degrade the privacy assurances that signal has had so far - people will associate plenty of previous cryptoscams to this new effort [0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eplanit 6y ago

I just went to Donorbox to cancel my $10 monthly donation. Clearly, they don't need such humble support anymore. What's after cryptocurrency, ads?

bo0tzz 6y ago
I'd be much happier about (properly implemented) ads, than about this move.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Yes. I'd be happy to pay a buck or two per month instead of ads or gimmicks. An old fashioned model but I think they could still make a fortune on that small of a fee alone.
  - ruph123 6y ago
    A whole new industry: CRYPTO ADS!

birracerveza 6y ago

It's good that you added WTF to the title so I can know in advance how to feel about the news. Without it I would have actually needed to actually read the article before forming my opinion, but now I can go into it with the right mindset, or even better skip straight to the comment section already enraged. Thanks! --- Please note that I am complaining about the headline baiting. While I believe that crypto is the future I agree with the sentiment that the way Signal went and did it was poorly handled at best and shady at worst.

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

Isn't April Fools on the 1st?

kybernetikos 6y ago

Payments in chat is inevitable. I think that eventually all chat will have convenient payments or people will stop using it. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean cryptocurrencies, but until the large financial companies get involved (and they are notoriously risk averse), cryptocurrencies are a natural way to do this. As well as secure chat already needing much of the same key management infrastructure that cryptocurrencies need, it also hooks you into social networks - so you could have key recovery schemes where you trust a number of friends to hold portions of your backup keys (somewhat like what you probably do with your real life house keys). Trust, money and communication are all network phenomena, and using the same fabric for them all makes a lot of sense.