5 ms·

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 the

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
      WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of being the only app the government allows you to use in a country of a billion people.
  - ROARosen 6y ago
    > It made no sense to implement everything in one app. WeChat would disagree [1]. There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with potential for increased user adoption because of that ("please download signal so I can pay you easily") and I don't see this as inherently bad. But they should have used a reputable coin instead of some scammy pyramid token. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:text=The%20iResearch%20Consulting%20Group%20estimates,transactions%20take%20place%20per%20day https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:te....
    - beojan 6y ago
      > There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Not in a country that has free, (de facto) instant bank transfers (Faster Payments). If the problem there is that you need someone's bank details and not just their phone number, there's Barclays' Pingit.
      - ROARosen 6y ago
        The fact that there is a separate service providing instant payments does nothing to disprove my point - being that payments within a chat app is useful, if not preferred, by millions in China and elsewhere. What exactly is the rationale that makes payments within a chat app 'inferior' or 'unneeded' just because there are separate services available (e.g. Barclays' Pingit)?
- blueblob 6y ago
  It's not in line with what people want in the app though. It's like using a text editor that all of the sudden implements a wiki on gardening preinstalled in the app. It's not relevant to the features you want in a chat app and there's no reason it couldn't be a separate app.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
Same.
anddddd1 6y ago
lol. why would this damage your trust in them? if anything this is a progressive move that fits perfectly with their mission. Having said that they should have used bitcoin or monero
numbsafari 6y ago
They won't care until someone creates a competitive fork that differentiates on this point.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  But is it worth it if users can simply not use the crypto feature?

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
    WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of being the only app the government allows you to use in a country of a billion people.
- ROARosen 6y ago
  > It made no sense to implement everything in one app. WeChat would disagree [1]. There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with potential for increased user adoption because of that ("please download signal so I can pay you easily") and I don't see this as inherently bad. But they should have used a reputable coin instead of some scammy pyramid token. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:text=The%20iResearch%20Consulting%20Group%20estimates,transactions%20take%20place%20per%20day https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:te....
  - beojan 6y ago
    > There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Not in a country that has free, (de facto) instant bank transfers (Faster Payments). If the problem there is that you need someone's bank details and not just their phone number, there's Barclays' Pingit.
    - ROARosen 6y ago
      The fact that there is a separate service providing instant payments does nothing to disprove my point - being that payments within a chat app is useful, if not preferred, by millions in China and elsewhere. What exactly is the rationale that makes payments within a chat app 'inferior' or 'unneeded' just because there are separate services available (e.g. Barclays' Pingit)?
blueblob 6y ago
It's not in line with what people want in the app though. It's like using a text editor that all of the sudden implements a wiki on gardening preinstalled in the app. It's not relevant to the features you want in a chat app and there's no reason it couldn't be a separate app.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

Same.

anddddd1 6y ago

lol. why would this damage your trust in them? if anything this is a progressive move that fits perfectly with their mission. Having said that they should have used bitcoin or monero

numbsafari 6y ago

They won't care until someone creates a competitive fork that differentiates on this point.

koheripbal 6y ago
But is it worth it if users can simply not use the crypto feature?