7 ms·

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 u

by 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.
  - dunefox 6y ago
    And why exactly does Signal need to be a kitchen sink app? What's next, CandyCrush inside Signal?
  - wasmitnetzen 6y ago
    The question is more whether it needs to support private and secure payments in the first place. That is, legally and ethically, a whole different beast than private communication.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  You seem to be confusing paying for Signal (there is no way to pay for it, but you can donate to the foundation) and exchanging money with your friends.
  - gerikson 6y ago
    As Schneier says, that could be implemented in a separate application, not the core Signal product. Signal just added a bunch of crowbars to the people who want to crack it open. Money laundering and tax evasion are seen seriously and there's generally more people doing it than, for example, planning terrorism.
FlyingSnake 6y ago
I think this is a strawman argument. Can't it be the users from group#3 who's sad to see Signal turn into WeChat? After all the lessons learned from Keybase are open for all to see. WhatsApp doesn't include payment mechanism in many markets, why is Signal trying to waste developer resources on unwanted features?
- agd 6y ago
  WhatsApp payments isn't available yet in all markets, but you can be sure it's coming.
  - fwn 6y ago
    WhatsApps payment feature is only available in India where they implemented the feature in alignment with the Indian UPI initiative. Src.: https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/payments/learn-more-about-participating-countries-and-supported-banks https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/payments/learn-more-about-p... Therefore I'd argue that this specific feature can hardly be seen as waiting for a global rollout.
    - agd 6y ago
      Payments was also launched in Brasil, and Facebook are on record as saying they want to expand it to more countries.
  - FlyingSnake 6y ago
    > you can be sure it's coming. It's standing on the shoulders of UPI in India. Do they also plan to bring India's UPI to rest of the world?
- sneak 6y ago
  I offer that if you think e2e encrypted messaging plus a simple cryptocurrency payment system is "turn[ing] into WeChat" that perhaps you are making a massive overgeneralization, or perhaps are unfamiliar with the scope and extent of WeChat.
- prophesi 6y ago
fwn 6y ago
> Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. This is thrown around a lot but I have difficulties to see how a wallet for an obscure alt coin might be in any way comparable to your standard payment app for the currency used in your region. It's not that I can use it to pay in a shop (like I can with Google Pay) or on a website (like with PayPal). ... I can't even repay my friends for paying the round in a bar because it would mean their money is suddenly entangled in this obscure and completely novel network. The money wouldn't end up in their bank account and they could even suffer unpredictable losses. I therefore think this argument is flawed. There's no upside next to the four payment apps I already have installed and none of my friends would prefer a messenger because it merged with a payment app for an almost unheard cryptocurrency. I would bet my social circle isn't a grave exception in this regard.
- freeAgent 6y ago
  Don’t forget that any time you send or receive payments in this cryptocurrency, you would have to track either the basis (when receiving) or capital gain/loss (when sending) assuming this ever comes to the US. It’s a mess.
simion314 6y ago
That seems wrong, is like if Mozilla forces crypto in Firefox. there will be many Firefox users that will not like it, it is not only the haters or Chrome users that will complain, hopefully maybe you can see the missing 4th perspective.
- agd 6y ago
  I don't believe the main competitors to Firefox (Chrome, Edge, Safari) offer a payment mechanism? So this wouldn't be required for core feature parity. However the two main competitors to Signal (Telegram and Whatsapp imo) do have a payment mechanism.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    Chrome has the Payments API and the most recent betas have the Digital Goods API which allows Play Store billing.
  - simion314 6y ago
    I had no idea WhatsApp and Telegram have cryptocurrency support, I only use WhatsApp because I need it for soem school parents group though... but even if Chrome would add Gopogle Coin support I still will not like if Firefox forces it and not make it an optional plugin (people still complain that Firefox added DRM support for media so this is not theoretical)
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Neither Telegram nor Whatsapp have crypto support. Both of them have very limited payments support, that doesn't use crypto at all.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Keeping up with the Joneses is rarely a good motivation
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Do Telegram have that now? I actively use Telegram but can't remember having seen it - nor an announcement that it is available.
cyberlab 6y ago
> and prevents mass surveillance A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. What if you somehow got malware on your device? That's all your Signal privacy out the window. Some phones are stuck on older versions and can't update to mitigate against so called 'zero click' attacks or attacks that require user action like clicking on a link sent via SMS which then spawns a malicious payload that's executed in the default browser. Malware on phones is rampant. It's not just 'spouseware' being installed behind your back or high-profile people being targeted. Millions of devices (billions even?) en masse are getting compromised with malware.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alexfromapex 6y ago
I have another attitude, which is suspicion that it is a honey trap. If the FBI can read messages (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/08/can-the-fbi-can-hack-into-private-signal-messages-on-a-locked-iphone-evidence-indicates-yes/?sh=4126fd1e6624 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/08/can-t...), it would seem like the perfect setup for them. Why does everyone have so much faith in Signal? What if that faith is being misplaced?
- eugeniub 6y ago
  Come on. The article you linked just shows that if the FBI can unlock an iPhone, they can read Signal messages. This is not exactly a surprising revelation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- agd 6y ago
  Gov agencies can hack devices to read the contents - this is not specific to Signal or any weakness of Signal. However Signal does provide secure e2e encryption which prevents mass surveillance.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> there are 3 attitudes towards Signal I am in group 4. I didn’t care that Moxie calls the shots and requires a phone number. And I was thrilled to have a secure communication app, from when Signal was TextSecure. I hate this to the point that I’m dropping Signal. The only reason to choose MobileCoin is Moxie’s personal affiliation to it. Meanwhile, this integration massively increases Signal’s regulatory cross section. Most Americans strongly support free speech. That support doesn’t exist for dark money transactions. If the CFTC or New York DFS wanted to open a money laundering investigation into Signal, using the full AML/ATF toolkit in the process, there isn’t a great argument anymore for why they can’t or shouldn’t. Same for the Secret Service or FBI. Moxie just sold out Signal’s First Amendment credentials.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  That may be the intent.
- hedora 6y ago
  I suppose you’re also for banning cash? I don’t see the problem with being allowed to pay people money without having the government be involved. That’s how things used to work before the US became a surveillance state, and the government and economy worked well enough.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  "Moxie just sold out Signal’s First Amendment credentials." Id argue he just created a new front: freedom of association. I still think you are right with your concerns. You say he sold out credentials. I would say he bravely staked out a new claim.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > he bravely staked out a new claim Culturally, sure. Legally, Signal becomes open season for law enforcement the moment this feature is implemented. And there will be zero law protecting them or any data they may have retained, properly or improperly, on their users. Given the MobileCoin's venality, I doubt they'll get public sympathy.
Hamuko 6y ago
>But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. A payment mechanism just isn't a core chat application feature.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  This is like saying "a phone should just make phone calls!" It was true in the past, but is no longer true today.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    It's not. First of all, a phone is physical hardware, Signal is an application. Does Signal also need a music streaming integration? Restaurant listings? A torrent client?
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    No. Not every app needs to become an operating system for life. We can have multiple apps on a device with little to no inconvenience. Carrying multiple devices is much more cumbersome.
    - Klonoar 6y ago
      Ideally they don’t, but they have - go live in Asia or South America for a bit and you’ll find spots where this is the model, and Signal can’t easily (or at all) reach those users without competing.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Are you saying people in those regions only able to use one app on their device / phone?
        Klonoar 6y ago
        You know I'm not saying that. ;P That's just how it winds up working there.
marcosdumay 6y ago
So... Looks like the people on group #1 were right all the time. And you are posting this as an answer to somebody telling you that his pet idea will kill the platform and bring law enforcement all over the world into its users. (What in my impression is the best case scenario, because when I've read about it I could only think about it bringing fraud and extortion into the users.)
saurik 6y ago
What the world needs, though, is a decent, private alternative to Snapchat--which a lot of very normal non-technical people use specifically with the goal of "privacy" as they don't want to give their phone number to random people they meet at parties or while doing online dating or on services such as TikTok--not WhatsApp, which is already end-to-end encrypted (with the same protocol!). Signal needs to remain a viable alternative to WhatsApp to "keep them honest", but doesn't need to fight them and should move on to their next challenge (as the goal shouldn't be "get everyone to use Signal", but instead should be "get everyone to use an end-to-end secure messaging app"). This all happens to firmly fall into the first camp, which you incorrectly label as "purists" :(. Even the people I talk to who want to organize protests and the such are harmed by everyone pushing Signal as their main threat is a cop getting a list of all of the phone numbers in a chat off of someone's phone, something Signal doesn't solve... but, ironically, Snapchat and Telegram do, for all of their other faults: we need an end-to-end encrypted Snapchat/Telegram _stat_.
zucker42 6y ago
Why does the payment mechanism have to be a dodgy cryptocurrency?
45ure 6y ago
>But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. If anybody tried to onboard me on the basis of a 'payment mechanism' feature -- the answer will be a flat out no, as most of the payment flow in my professional and personal life does not involve a messaging platform, in order to achieve that objective. I have Coinbase/Binance for crypto. Revolut/Transferwise to cover micropayments, foreign transactions, currency exchange etc., same with PayPal albeit a higher threshold. Monzo for cloudnative/FinTech banking. I have personal accounts with two out of four traditional banks, and a business account with another. I use Google Pay and Apple Pay, interchangeably.
m-p-3 6y ago
> But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. What it needs is not reaching feature-parity (although that will appeal to the mass, can't blame the), but to keep privacy as the central feature of the platform, and always move toward improving that feature. And yes, the fact that Signal uses a phone number as the main identifier is a problem regarding privacy. And they did update their Signal-Server repo, but it took a while before it was and that's likely because they were trying to finalize that cryptocurrency feature before announcing it, but an apparent lack of transparency can lower the user-base's trust toward the platform.
aseipp 6y ago
Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. Frankly the idea that I suddenly might have to have another goddamn thing is a bit irritating but I've resigned myself to it. I think the other thing is that it's just a complete misread of how normal people even think about crypto. Literally every "normie" I know who has interest in cryptocurrency, even if they tow the line and say that "crypto is the future of money" or whatever, treat it entirely as a speculative asset when it comes down to it and that's what their usage of it revolves around. It's a thing they put $5 and that $5 becomes $10 later on and now they have $10. Sending it to other people is literally the last thing they want to do. As far as they're concerned, it's the exact same way the stock market works, only faster. None of them care about deflation or border politics or monetary privacy or whatever; it's practically just a way of flipping a bullshit asset into fiat cash, which is what matters. If they want to give people or their drug dealer money in a way that isn't on the record, they don't pull out their instant messenger and say "Let's use a blockchain to preserve our privacy during this transaction", they "pull cash from an ATM and do it in the bathroom of a bar" or whatever. They arrange this over SMS, probably, or maybe Signal already if you're lucky. Finally there's people like me, people who neither care that Signal is non-federated and don't care that it uses phone numbers, but who just think the cure is worse than the disease here. I'm not even talking about the politics of money exchange or privacy or anything; I just literally mean cryptocurrency invites fraudsters and scammers and all kinds of bullshit along with it, that ends up causing external harm to people. I don't want Signal to expend resources on this stuff because even if it aligns with their goals on paper or is something their competitors might do, I literally think it's turf they shouldn't be on because fundamentally the people who play that game have other goals in mind.
- sneak 6y ago
  > Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. All of those require doxxing yourself to the vendor, submitting to financial (suspicionless) mass surveillance systems, and can be trivially censored without any burden of proof or even probable cause to suspect wrongdoing by the entire machinery of the state. We saw this when Visa and Mastercard and PayPal willingly shut down donations to Wikileaks simply because the state asked - no legal compulsion was even necessary. I hold US citizenship and don't use any of the aforementioned services for those reasons. I don't like providing identity information to services where I don't have to, because I value my privacy: same reason I use Signal, same reason I pay in cash. Cryptocurrencies are censorship resistant and are open to use by everyone with an internet connection, just like Signal. There is a huge benefit to the service provider not having your identity or being able to see the contents of your messages: to the user, to the service provider, and to society.
Macha 6y ago
I think there are 3 attitudes towards Matrix: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's fragmented, and that a lot of users will use matrix.org anyway, and that they think Signal has better UX 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Discord exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us.
teekert 6y ago
Fully agree, group 1 should just focus on pushing Element.io and perhaps try to make it as easy (by default at least) as Signal. Signal is a drop-in replacement for Whatsapp (except for that nagging for a pin that really nobody of my normy friends/family understands and I help them turn it off, none of them expect continuity from phone to phone anyway) and that is it's strength.
fsflover 6y ago
> Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised You can call me a purist if you like, but every single project starts failing when it becomes too big, unless it's decentralized. You simply cannot afford to serve millions of users without a profit. Telegram now has to include ads.
- fullstop 6y ago
  They're not doing that just yet: https://t.me/durov/155 https://t.me/durov/155 They have found investors and have enough cash on hand for quite a while.
tw04 6y ago
>My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Maybe you should be worried Moxie is ruining it for the rest of us? After spending the better part of the last decade telling us how all you care about is giving end-users easy to consume privacy - adding a payment option that will make you and your buddy rich isn't a great look. Hard to take the rest of what you say seriously when you sell out in this fashion.
- shafyy 6y ago
  Exactly. Especially after tooting his "we're a non-profit, we can never sell out" crap all over the place.
rglullis 6y ago
There are other decent private alternatives to Facebook and Whatsapp beyond Signal,so your argument smells as someone that is trying to rationalize away a horrible decision that they made. In any case, rest assured that as a "purist" who argues against Signal's centralization, you shouldn't worry about us in the group 1. We are not going to ruin anything "for the rest of you". Signal will do it themselves. We are vocal and "angry" because history has shown time and time again that systems that centralize power end up corrupt and self-destruct. The "purists" are only warning you about it. Blaming "us" about it feels a little bit too much like Stockholm's Syndrome.
avtar 6y ago
> But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. It's still not possible to italicize text using any of their clients. The desktop app feels rough compared to Telegram's -- try reducing the size of the messages preview column. Which group of users was actively requesting MobileCoin support?

by agd 6y ago

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.
- dunefox 6y ago
  And why exactly does Signal need to be a kitchen sink app? What's next, CandyCrush inside Signal?
- wasmitnetzen 6y ago
  The question is more whether it needs to support private and secure payments in the first place. That is, legally and ethically, a whole different beast than private communication.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheCraiggers 6y ago
You seem to be confusing paying for Signal (there is no way to pay for it, but you can donate to the foundation) and exchanging money with your friends.
- gerikson 6y ago
  As Schneier says, that could be implemented in a separate application, not the core Signal product. Signal just added a bunch of crowbars to the people who want to crack it open. Money laundering and tax evasion are seen seriously and there's generally more people doing it than, for example, planning terrorism.

FlyingSnake 6y ago

I think this is a strawman argument. Can't it be the users from group#3 who's sad to see Signal turn into WeChat? After all the lessons learned from Keybase are open for all to see. WhatsApp doesn't include payment mechanism in many markets, why is Signal trying to waste developer resources on unwanted features?

agd 6y ago
WhatsApp payments isn't available yet in all markets, but you can be sure it's coming.
- fwn 6y ago
  WhatsApps payment feature is only available in India where they implemented the feature in alignment with the Indian UPI initiative. Src.: https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/payments/learn-more-about-participating-countries-and-supported-banks https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/payments/learn-more-about-p... Therefore I'd argue that this specific feature can hardly be seen as waiting for a global rollout.
  - agd 6y ago
    Payments was also launched in Brasil, and Facebook are on record as saying they want to expand it to more countries.
- FlyingSnake 6y ago
  > you can be sure it's coming. It's standing on the shoulders of UPI in India. Do they also plan to bring India's UPI to rest of the world?
sneak 6y ago
I offer that if you think e2e encrypted messaging plus a simple cryptocurrency payment system is "turn[ing] into WeChat" that perhaps you are making a massive overgeneralization, or perhaps are unfamiliar with the scope and extent of WeChat.
prophesi 6y ago

fwn 6y ago

> Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. This is thrown around a lot but I have difficulties to see how a wallet for an obscure alt coin might be in any way comparable to your standard payment app for the currency used in your region. It's not that I can use it to pay in a shop (like I can with Google Pay) or on a website (like with PayPal). ... I can't even repay my friends for paying the round in a bar because it would mean their money is suddenly entangled in this obscure and completely novel network. The money wouldn't end up in their bank account and they could even suffer unpredictable losses. I therefore think this argument is flawed. There's no upside next to the four payment apps I already have installed and none of my friends would prefer a messenger because it merged with a payment app for an almost unheard cryptocurrency. I would bet my social circle isn't a grave exception in this regard.

freeAgent 6y ago
Don’t forget that any time you send or receive payments in this cryptocurrency, you would have to track either the basis (when receiving) or capital gain/loss (when sending) assuming this ever comes to the US. It’s a mess.

simion314 6y ago

That seems wrong, is like if Mozilla forces crypto in Firefox. there will be many Firefox users that will not like it, it is not only the haters or Chrome users that will complain, hopefully maybe you can see the missing 4th perspective.

agd 6y ago
I don't believe the main competitors to Firefox (Chrome, Edge, Safari) offer a payment mechanism? So this wouldn't be required for core feature parity. However the two main competitors to Signal (Telegram and Whatsapp imo) do have a payment mechanism.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  Chrome has the Payments API and the most recent betas have the Digital Goods API which allows Play Store billing.
- simion314 6y ago
  I had no idea WhatsApp and Telegram have cryptocurrency support, I only use WhatsApp because I need it for soem school parents group though... but even if Chrome would add Gopogle Coin support I still will not like if Firefox forces it and not make it an optional plugin (people still complain that Firefox added DRM support for media so this is not theoretical)
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Neither Telegram nor Whatsapp have crypto support. Both of them have very limited payments support, that doesn't use crypto at all.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Keeping up with the Joneses is rarely a good motivation
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Do Telegram have that now? I actively use Telegram but can't remember having seen it - nor an announcement that it is available.

cyberlab 6y ago

> and prevents mass surveillance A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. What if you somehow got malware on your device? That's all your Signal privacy out the window. Some phones are stuck on older versions and can't update to mitigate against so called 'zero click' attacks or attacks that require user action like clicking on a link sent via SMS which then spawns a malicious payload that's executed in the default browser. Malware on phones is rampant. It's not just 'spouseware' being installed behind your back or high-profile people being targeted. Millions of devices (billions even?) en masse are getting compromised with malware.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

alexfromapex 6y ago

I have another attitude, which is suspicion that it is a honey trap. If the FBI can read messages (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/08/can-the-fbi-can-hack-into-private-signal-messages-on-a-locked-iphone-evidence-indicates-yes/?sh=4126fd1e6624 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/08/can-t...), it would seem like the perfect setup for them. Why does everyone have so much faith in Signal? What if that faith is being misplaced?

eugeniub 6y ago
Come on. The article you linked just shows that if the FBI can unlock an iPhone, they can read Signal messages. This is not exactly a surprising revelation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
agd 6y ago
Gov agencies can hack devices to read the contents - this is not specific to Signal or any weakness of Signal. However Signal does provide secure e2e encryption which prevents mass surveillance.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> there are 3 attitudes towards Signal I am in group 4. I didn’t care that Moxie calls the shots and requires a phone number. And I was thrilled to have a secure communication app, from when Signal was TextSecure. I hate this to the point that I’m dropping Signal. The only reason to choose MobileCoin is Moxie’s personal affiliation to it. Meanwhile, this integration massively increases Signal’s regulatory cross section. Most Americans strongly support free speech. That support doesn’t exist for dark money transactions. If the CFTC or New York DFS wanted to open a money laundering investigation into Signal, using the full AML/ATF toolkit in the process, there isn’t a great argument anymore for why they can’t or shouldn’t. Same for the Secret Service or FBI. Moxie just sold out Signal’s First Amendment credentials.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
That may be the intent.
hedora 6y ago
I suppose you’re also for banning cash? I don’t see the problem with being allowed to pay people money without having the government be involved. That’s how things used to work before the US became a surveillance state, and the government and economy worked well enough.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
"Moxie just sold out Signal’s First Amendment credentials." Id argue he just created a new front: freedom of association. I still think you are right with your concerns. You say he sold out credentials. I would say he bravely staked out a new claim.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > he bravely staked out a new claim Culturally, sure. Legally, Signal becomes open season for law enforcement the moment this feature is implemented. And there will be zero law protecting them or any data they may have retained, properly or improperly, on their users. Given the MobileCoin's venality, I doubt they'll get public sympathy.

Hamuko 6y ago

>But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. A payment mechanism just isn't a core chat application feature.

jaywalk 6y ago
This is like saying "a phone should just make phone calls!" It was true in the past, but is no longer true today.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  It's not. First of all, a phone is physical hardware, Signal is an application. Does Signal also need a music streaming integration? Restaurant listings? A torrent client?
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  No. Not every app needs to become an operating system for life. We can have multiple apps on a device with little to no inconvenience. Carrying multiple devices is much more cumbersome.
  - Klonoar 6y ago
    Ideally they don’t, but they have - go live in Asia or South America for a bit and you’ll find spots where this is the model, and Signal can’t easily (or at all) reach those users without competing.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Are you saying people in those regions only able to use one app on their device / phone?
      - Klonoar 6y ago
        You know I'm not saying that. ;P That's just how it winds up working there.

marcosdumay 6y ago

So... Looks like the people on group #1 were right all the time. And you are posting this as an answer to somebody telling you that his pet idea will kill the platform and bring law enforcement all over the world into its users. (What in my impression is the best case scenario, because when I've read about it I could only think about it bringing fraud and extortion into the users.)

saurik 6y ago

What the world needs, though, is a decent, private alternative to Snapchat--which a lot of very normal non-technical people use specifically with the goal of "privacy" as they don't want to give their phone number to random people they meet at parties or while doing online dating or on services such as TikTok--not WhatsApp, which is already end-to-end encrypted (with the same protocol!). Signal needs to remain a viable alternative to WhatsApp to "keep them honest", but doesn't need to fight them and should move on to their next challenge (as the goal shouldn't be "get everyone to use Signal", but instead should be "get everyone to use an end-to-end secure messaging app"). This all happens to firmly fall into the first camp, which you incorrectly label as "purists" :(. Even the people I talk to who want to organize protests and the such are harmed by everyone pushing Signal as their main threat is a cop getting a list of all of the phone numbers in a chat off of someone's phone, something Signal doesn't solve... but, ironically, Snapchat and Telegram do, for all of their other faults: we need an end-to-end encrypted Snapchat/Telegram _stat_.

zucker42 6y ago

Why does the payment mechanism have to be a dodgy cryptocurrency?

45ure 6y ago

>But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. If anybody tried to onboard me on the basis of a 'payment mechanism' feature -- the answer will be a flat out no, as most of the payment flow in my professional and personal life does not involve a messaging platform, in order to achieve that objective. I have Coinbase/Binance for crypto. Revolut/Transferwise to cover micropayments, foreign transactions, currency exchange etc., same with PayPal albeit a higher threshold. Monzo for cloudnative/FinTech banking. I have personal accounts with two out of four traditional banks, and a business account with another. I use Google Pay and Apple Pay, interchangeably.

m-p-3 6y ago

> But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. What it needs is not reaching feature-parity (although that will appeal to the mass, can't blame the), but to keep privacy as the central feature of the platform, and always move toward improving that feature. And yes, the fact that Signal uses a phone number as the main identifier is a problem regarding privacy. And they did update their Signal-Server repo, but it took a while before it was and that's likely because they were trying to finalize that cryptocurrency feature before announcing it, but an apparent lack of transparency can lower the user-base's trust toward the platform.

aseipp 6y ago

Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. Frankly the idea that I suddenly might have to have another goddamn thing is a bit irritating but I've resigned myself to it. I think the other thing is that it's just a complete misread of how normal people even think about crypto. Literally every "normie" I know who has interest in cryptocurrency, even if they tow the line and say that "crypto is the future of money" or whatever, treat it entirely as a speculative asset when it comes down to it and that's what their usage of it revolves around. It's a thing they put $5 and that $5 becomes $10 later on and now they have $10. Sending it to other people is literally the last thing they want to do. As far as they're concerned, it's the exact same way the stock market works, only faster. None of them care about deflation or border politics or monetary privacy or whatever; it's practically just a way of flipping a bullshit asset into fiat cash, which is what matters. If they want to give people or their drug dealer money in a way that isn't on the record, they don't pull out their instant messenger and say "Let's use a blockchain to preserve our privacy during this transaction", they "pull cash from an ATM and do it in the bathroom of a bar" or whatever. They arrange this over SMS, probably, or maybe Signal already if you're lucky. Finally there's people like me, people who neither care that Signal is non-federated and don't care that it uses phone numbers, but who just think the cure is worse than the disease here. I'm not even talking about the politics of money exchange or privacy or anything; I just literally mean cryptocurrency invites fraudsters and scammers and all kinds of bullshit along with it, that ends up causing external harm to people. I don't want Signal to expend resources on this stuff because even if it aligns with their goals on paper or is something their competitors might do, I literally think it's turf they shouldn't be on because fundamentally the people who play that game have other goals in mind.

sneak 6y ago
> Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. All of those require doxxing yourself to the vendor, submitting to financial (suspicionless) mass surveillance systems, and can be trivially censored without any burden of proof or even probable cause to suspect wrongdoing by the entire machinery of the state. We saw this when Visa and Mastercard and PayPal willingly shut down donations to Wikileaks simply because the state asked - no legal compulsion was even necessary. I hold US citizenship and don't use any of the aforementioned services for those reasons. I don't like providing identity information to services where I don't have to, because I value my privacy: same reason I use Signal, same reason I pay in cash. Cryptocurrencies are censorship resistant and are open to use by everyone with an internet connection, just like Signal. There is a huge benefit to the service provider not having your identity or being able to see the contents of your messages: to the user, to the service provider, and to society.

Macha 6y ago

I think there are 3 attitudes towards Matrix: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's fragmented, and that a lot of users will use matrix.org anyway, and that they think Signal has better UX 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Discord exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us.

teekert 6y ago

Fully agree, group 1 should just focus on pushing Element.io and perhaps try to make it as easy (by default at least) as Signal. Signal is a drop-in replacement for Whatsapp (except for that nagging for a pin that really nobody of my normy friends/family understands and I help them turn it off, none of them expect continuity from phone to phone anyway) and that is it's strength.

fsflover 6y ago

> Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised You can call me a purist if you like, but every single project starts failing when it becomes too big, unless it's decentralized. You simply cannot afford to serve millions of users without a profit. Telegram now has to include ads.

fullstop 6y ago
They're not doing that just yet: https://t.me/durov/155 https://t.me/durov/155 They have found investors and have enough cash on hand for quite a while.

tw04 6y ago

>My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Maybe you should be worried Moxie is ruining it for the rest of us? After spending the better part of the last decade telling us how all you care about is giving end-users easy to consume privacy - adding a payment option that will make you and your buddy rich isn't a great look. Hard to take the rest of what you say seriously when you sell out in this fashion.

shafyy 6y ago
Exactly. Especially after tooting his "we're a non-profit, we can never sell out" crap all over the place.

rglullis 6y ago

There are other decent private alternatives to Facebook and Whatsapp beyond Signal,so your argument smells as someone that is trying to rationalize away a horrible decision that they made. In any case, rest assured that as a "purist" who argues against Signal's centralization, you shouldn't worry about us in the group 1. We are not going to ruin anything "for the rest of you". Signal will do it themselves. We are vocal and "angry" because history has shown time and time again that systems that centralize power end up corrupt and self-destruct. The "purists" are only warning you about it. Blaming "us" about it feels a little bit too much like Stockholm's Syndrome.

avtar 6y ago

> But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism. It's still not possible to italicize text using any of their clients. The desktop app feels rough compared to Telegram's -- try reducing the size of the messages preview column. Which group of users was actively requesting MobileCoin support?