4 ms·

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

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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__ 5y ago
  Maybe not from a security perspective, but WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of implementing everything in one app.
  - matoro 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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__ 5y ago
Maybe not from a security perspective, but WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of implementing everything in one app.
- matoro 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.