9 ms·

I definitely agree with the article that it felt a bit like a betrayal. I've pushed some friends and family to use it over Telegram despite significant usabilit

by simias 6y ago

I definitely agree with the article that it felt a bit like a betrayal. I've pushed some friends and family to use it over Telegram despite significant usability issue, and now I see that instead of implementing some IMO basic features like proper message sync and easy backup when you get a new phone, they prefer to implement a... micropayment system? Based on some niche altcoin which doesn't even exist on mainstream exchanges? It goes beyond the usual issue with cryptocurrencies. Let's assume that they integrated with Bitcoin or Litecoin or some "mainstream" CC, would it still be a good idea? You can already send wallet addresses over signal if you care to do it. I'm willing to give the Signal devs the benefit of the doubt and assume that they meant well and aren't actively trying to benefit from the move (even though I'm not completely dismissing this possibility) but at the very least it's just showcases a very strange way to lead the project and prioritize issues. I can think of a dozen things out of the top that would do more to drive Signal adoption than integrating with some "literally what?" cryptocoin. This is going to drive the adoption of this niche cryptocoin, it's not going to do anything at all for Signal.

matkoniecz 6y ago
I thought about spending my time on promoting Signal, now I am happy that I avoided it.
vodkapump 6y ago
> easy backup when you get a new phone I just recently got a new phone, and used the new feature to do this (uses wi-fi direct) and I have to say it seemed like it would be easy enough for non-techy users to use.
- tw04 6y ago
  Try transferring from an iOS phone to Android. Try transferring messages to a new desktop (you can't). It's 2021, I don't want to be platform locked and none of the other popular messaging apps have that issue.
  - dividedbyzero 6y ago
    Last I checked (about a year ago I think) Whatsapp backups were platform-locked as well.
    - bilal4hmed 6y ago
      They are working on it https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/05/whatsapp-chat-history-migration-iphone-android/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/05/whatsapp-chat-history-migrati...
    - blendergeek 6y ago
      > Last I checked (about a year ago I think) Whatsapp backups were platform-locked as well. I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Whatsapp backups are still platform locked to this day. But that may change soon. https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-may-soon-allow-you-to-transfer-chat-history-between-iphone-and-android-devices/articleshow/81927926.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-may-s...
    - orbifold 6y ago
      You can get a dump of all your messages with someone pretty easily.
    - frosted-flakes 6y ago
      Not completely. WhatsApp pushed out an Android-compatible backup option on their BlackBerry 10 app when they announced that they were shutting the app down a few years ago. But it was behind a notice that said it was 'not supported', even though it worked fine. Only to Android though.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Whatsapp does, so it's probably not that critical of a feature.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Most people don't switch platforms very often so it's not a big deal to them and just a corner case. Also most people don't care that much about old messages so again a corner case.
- Y-bar 6y ago
  My phone needed to be factory reset, where was my backup to restore from without purchasing a second phone?
  - crtasm 6y ago
    I only just got this set up, but you can point the automatic backups to your SD card on Android. I guess some cloud sync app could pick it up from there or internal storage.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Signal for iOS disables backup.
- ent 6y ago
  Not sure why this was downvoted. I switched phones yesterday and transferring signal with the direct wi-fi transfer was easier than transferring whatsapp, I do know that that used to not be the case.
  - bosie 6y ago
    because it is only relevant for one very specific type of 'switching phones'
- eptcyka 6y ago
  Yeah, but consider the use case where you lose your phone in an accident or someone steals it. You can recover your sim card, you know your recovery password. But you'll be SoL and you won't be able to recover the history of all of your group and individual chats. This sucks.
  - yaomtc 6y ago
    There's a backup function. Maybe they should add some cloud drive integration to that feature.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Signal for Android allows backup. Signal for iOS doesn't.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  Did you ever try to salvage data off a dead phone? Many of us only buy a new device when the old is fubar.
- izacus 6y ago
  Will that feature work if you drop your phone and it breaks? Or will you lose all your conversations and photos then?
- simias 6y ago
  That's great to know, I didn't know they had improved on that front. Last time I tried to do it you had to manually copy a file from a micro-SD card (and it was only supported on Android) and then you had to copy a crypto key. In the end I couldn't get it to work and gave up. Unfortunately day-to-day my issue is more with syncing the desktop to the phone client's history and as far as I know it still won't let me do that. An other super convenient feature of Whatsapp and Telegram is that they offer a pure web interface with basic functionality which is super convenient if you're in a pinch and don't want to/can't install the standalone desktop application.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Proper message sync is hardly possible with end-to-end encryption everyone so excited about (without fully understanding the implications of true secrecy). If you have e2ee and then sync messages via google drive (looking at you, Viber), you are kinda missing the point.
- nlitened 6y ago
  I remember that Skype, before it was bought and ruined by Microsoft, had P2P chat history sync that worked the following way: once two of your devices were online at the same time, they synchronized chat history among the two running instances flawlessly. It was super reliable and predictable. I am sure that Signal could implement the same peer-to-peer sync scheme with full end-to-end encryption without any secrecy compromises.
  - robjan 6y ago
    One of the features of the Signal protocol is that each message is signed with a different key so that if one message is somehow compromised it's still impossible to retrieve the others. I think this would break with P2P sync.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      First people want full security, but when they encounter inconveniences that come with true full security, they start wanting convenience. What works best is a very very very good promise of security without e2ee, as shown by Telegram. It's users just know that Telegram is the most protected messages, and they are happy with it's advanced features.
    - nlitened 6y ago
      Your Signal client has all the messages stored unencrypted (this is true because you can read them all, and search all the local messages). What's preventing the client from dumping all the messages to a single file, encrypt it with a public key of the other running instance of Signal logged in to the same account, and send it, so that your other device can decrypt the file and import all the messages?
skrowl 6y ago
Telegram is just so much more usable than Signal. The perceived advantage of Signal over Telegram is LITERALLY not having an option for a cloud-synced chat and ONLY having end to end encrypted chats. That's all. You give up of usability to get that advantage. Explain to your mom why she has to give up Telegram to get basically the same functionality as Telegram secret chats. Signals crypto is used by Facebook and was sponsored by the US Govt. Before you believe "OMG Telegram crypto is bad!" FUD, do 15 minutes of research.
- viro 6y ago
  Most non profit work in the US is somewhat funded by the US government via grants and crap ... 80% to be exact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eximius 6y ago
  There are no known attacks against Telegram. The problem is entirely that its cryptography was sketchy and just plain weird to begin with. It wasn't wrong, per se, but raised some eyebrows. And then some of the questionable choices were silently fixed removing the ability to MITM, etc, but with no real notice. It's not FUD.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    Interestingly, if you say that Signal's funding is sketchy and it raised some eyebrows, that would be FUD (see sibling comment). But saying the same about Telegram encryption is for some reason perfectly fine and definitely not FUD. Shouldn't we have the same standard for all claims?
    - xenocratus 6y ago
      So you're saying we should have the same standard while literally giving two different types of allegations that are thrown at Signal and Telegram respectively? We either consider the funding of both and decide how the funding COULD ultimately impact the product, or we could look at the source code of the applications and the cryptographic theory supporting them and talk about that. If crypto experts aren't finding holes in Signal's protocols [1], I don't think random people on the internet yelling "bUt It WaS fUnDeD bY ..." will make it less secure. [1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013 https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013
eitland 6y ago
As someone who has been defending Telegram against certain claims here from time to time this is still a sad day for me. I'd appreciate however if everyone who has been saying ugly things about the alternatives would take a step back now and consider if there is more to security than E2E-encryption. E2E-encryption is a seriously nice and useful property of a messaging system, but in the long run it is only one of many important details, and while E2E-encryption is always a good thing for end users as far as I can see other useful properties are often directly at odds with each other: - incentives and funding. Free to give everyone the ability to use it or paid to align incentives? - anonymity or verified identies? Both have significant advantages. - repudiation or non repudiation? Depends on if you agreed on a contract or discussed something that the new regime doesn't approve of. - backups? or ephemeral? Again, depends on if you are sharing family photos in a group or or sharing something that should stay between you and the recipient Edit to add: As for solutions I think healthy competition is one of the best ways to ensure every messaging system tries to be tje best they can be.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bdcs 6y ago
Mobilecoin (Foundation) is a technological, ethical, and legal tour de force. I recommend you read their FAQ, but, to me anyway, it is obvious why Signal/Moxie needed to create a new coin (tl;dr: It needed to be a private venmo-like experience). To prevent conflicts of interest, a new org was created. Hence Mobilecoin, not SignalCoin. A few highlights: Technological: * First Oblivious RAM implementation, "fog", so that transacting parties cannot be revealed * Their Rust codebase is really nice * Instant transfers with little computing power (CO2 emissions) Ethical: * Moxie and Josh Goldbard hold no MOB, along with the employees. The Mobilecoin foundation has some awesome partners, e.g. the Long Now Foundation. * Mining is not ethical, it pollutes the planet and is just bad. The only alternative is a "pre-mine" given to an independent org, ie Mobilecoin Foundation Legal: * The US's laws are not clear on what is allowable with privacy coins, so Mobilecoin has played it conservatively by saying US residents can't own the coins. In summary, the critiques of Mobilecoin (in any of its incarnations, foundation, moxie, etc.) are assuming the agents involved have a financial interest in MOB being expensive -- I contend that is not the case. Please show your evidence. PS. I am assuming good faith and honesty in statements, eg "Marlinspike notes, however, that neither he nor Signal own any MobileCoins." https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messaging-cryptocurrency/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messa... PPS. Some direct responses: >Let's assume that they integrated with Bitcoin or Litecoin or some "mainstream" CC, would it still be a good idea? No, not private. Also slow. Also pollutes planet. Monero is close on the privacy front, but takes 3 minutes to send (very stressful). It's possible a coin with the proper attributes could be made on stellar, but that raises questions towards ownership of Lumens (and pumping them) and their stellar reimplementation in Rust is likely more secure. >Niche coin nit: MOB has a top 15 market cap with 250m coins in distribution. Though I would hesitate to compare to other cryptocurrencies which are almost entirely scammy, polluting garbage.
- Igelau 6y ago
  > Moxie and Josh Goldbard hold no MOB, along with the employees Right, the foundation sells the premined crypto-currency at a pumped up price. The foundation pays Goldbard and Moxie for their work. Employees are paid from the VC. No one connected has to hold any of it, nor will they want to after the dump.
xg15 6y ago
> I'm willing to give the Signal devs the benefit of the doubt How many "benefit of the doubt" cards do they have left by now?
- xvector 6y ago
  Zero. This was an obvious get rich quick scheme. They intentionally fragmented the space of privacy coins to profit off of a frankly disgusting pump and dump.

by simias 6y ago

matkoniecz 6y ago

I thought about spending my time on promoting Signal, now I am happy that I avoided it.

vodkapump 6y ago

> easy backup when you get a new phone I just recently got a new phone, and used the new feature to do this (uses wi-fi direct) and I have to say it seemed like it would be easy enough for non-techy users to use.

tw04 6y ago
Try transferring from an iOS phone to Android. Try transferring messages to a new desktop (you can't). It's 2021, I don't want to be platform locked and none of the other popular messaging apps have that issue.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  Last I checked (about a year ago I think) Whatsapp backups were platform-locked as well.
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    They are working on it https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/05/whatsapp-chat-history-migration-iphone-android/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/05/whatsapp-chat-history-migrati...
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    > Last I checked (about a year ago I think) Whatsapp backups were platform-locked as well. I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Whatsapp backups are still platform locked to this day. But that may change soon. https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-may-soon-allow-you-to-transfer-chat-history-between-iphone-and-android-devices/articleshow/81927926.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-may-s...
  - orbifold 6y ago
    You can get a dump of all your messages with someone pretty easily.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Not completely. WhatsApp pushed out an Android-compatible backup option on their BlackBerry 10 app when they announced that they were shutting the app down a few years ago. But it was behind a notice that said it was 'not supported', even though it worked fine. Only to Android though.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Whatsapp does, so it's probably not that critical of a feature.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Most people don't switch platforms very often so it's not a big deal to them and just a corner case. Also most people don't care that much about old messages so again a corner case.
Y-bar 6y ago
My phone needed to be factory reset, where was my backup to restore from without purchasing a second phone?
- crtasm 6y ago
  I only just got this set up, but you can point the automatic backups to your SD card on Android. I guess some cloud sync app could pick it up from there or internal storage.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Signal for iOS disables backup.
ent 6y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted. I switched phones yesterday and transferring signal with the direct wi-fi transfer was easier than transferring whatsapp, I do know that that used to not be the case.
- bosie 6y ago
  because it is only relevant for one very specific type of 'switching phones'
eptcyka 6y ago
Yeah, but consider the use case where you lose your phone in an accident or someone steals it. You can recover your sim card, you know your recovery password. But you'll be SoL and you won't be able to recover the history of all of your group and individual chats. This sucks.
- yaomtc 6y ago
  There's a backup function. Maybe they should add some cloud drive integration to that feature.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Signal for Android allows backup. Signal for iOS doesn't.
pmlnr 6y ago
Did you ever try to salvage data off a dead phone? Many of us only buy a new device when the old is fubar.
izacus 6y ago
Will that feature work if you drop your phone and it breaks? Or will you lose all your conversations and photos then?
simias 6y ago
That's great to know, I didn't know they had improved on that front. Last time I tried to do it you had to manually copy a file from a micro-SD card (and it was only supported on Android) and then you had to copy a crypto key. In the end I couldn't get it to work and gave up. Unfortunately day-to-day my issue is more with syncing the desktop to the phone client's history and as far as I know it still won't let me do that. An other super convenient feature of Whatsapp and Telegram is that they offer a pure web interface with basic functionality which is super convenient if you're in a pinch and don't want to/can't install the standalone desktop application.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Proper message sync is hardly possible with end-to-end encryption everyone so excited about (without fully understanding the implications of true secrecy). If you have e2ee and then sync messages via google drive (looking at you, Viber), you are kinda missing the point.

nlitened 6y ago
I remember that Skype, before it was bought and ruined by Microsoft, had P2P chat history sync that worked the following way: once two of your devices were online at the same time, they synchronized chat history among the two running instances flawlessly. It was super reliable and predictable. I am sure that Signal could implement the same peer-to-peer sync scheme with full end-to-end encryption without any secrecy compromises.
- robjan 6y ago
  One of the features of the Signal protocol is that each message is signed with a different key so that if one message is somehow compromised it's still impossible to retrieve the others. I think this would break with P2P sync.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    First people want full security, but when they encounter inconveniences that come with true full security, they start wanting convenience. What works best is a very very very good promise of security without e2ee, as shown by Telegram. It's users just know that Telegram is the most protected messages, and they are happy with it's advanced features.
  - nlitened 6y ago
    Your Signal client has all the messages stored unencrypted (this is true because you can read them all, and search all the local messages). What's preventing the client from dumping all the messages to a single file, encrypt it with a public key of the other running instance of Signal logged in to the same account, and send it, so that your other device can decrypt the file and import all the messages?

skrowl 6y ago

Telegram is just so much more usable than Signal. The perceived advantage of Signal over Telegram is LITERALLY not having an option for a cloud-synced chat and ONLY having end to end encrypted chats. That's all. You give up of usability to get that advantage. Explain to your mom why she has to give up Telegram to get basically the same functionality as Telegram secret chats. Signals crypto is used by Facebook and was sponsored by the US Govt. Before you believe "OMG Telegram crypto is bad!" FUD, do 15 minutes of research.

viro 6y ago
Most non profit work in the US is somewhat funded by the US government via grants and crap ... 80% to be exact.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eximius 6y ago
There are no known attacks against Telegram. The problem is entirely that its cryptography was sketchy and just plain weird to begin with. It wasn't wrong, per se, but raised some eyebrows. And then some of the questionable choices were silently fixed removing the ability to MITM, etc, but with no real notice. It's not FUD.
- vetinari 6y ago
  Interestingly, if you say that Signal's funding is sketchy and it raised some eyebrows, that would be FUD (see sibling comment). But saying the same about Telegram encryption is for some reason perfectly fine and definitely not FUD. Shouldn't we have the same standard for all claims?
  - xenocratus 6y ago
    So you're saying we should have the same standard while literally giving two different types of allegations that are thrown at Signal and Telegram respectively? We either consider the funding of both and decide how the funding COULD ultimately impact the product, or we could look at the source code of the applications and the cryptographic theory supporting them and talk about that. If crypto experts aren't finding holes in Signal's protocols [1], I don't think random people on the internet yelling "bUt It WaS fUnDeD bY ..." will make it less secure. [1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013 https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013

eitland 6y ago

As someone who has been defending Telegram against certain claims here from time to time this is still a sad day for me. I'd appreciate however if everyone who has been saying ugly things about the alternatives would take a step back now and consider if there is more to security than E2E-encryption. E2E-encryption is a seriously nice and useful property of a messaging system, but in the long run it is only one of many important details, and while E2E-encryption is always a good thing for end users as far as I can see other useful properties are often directly at odds with each other: - incentives and funding. Free to give everyone the ability to use it or paid to align incentives? - anonymity or verified identies? Both have significant advantages. - repudiation or non repudiation? Depends on if you agreed on a contract or discussed something that the new regime doesn't approve of. - backups? or ephemeral? Again, depends on if you are sharing family photos in a group or or sharing something that should stay between you and the recipient Edit to add: As for solutions I think healthy competition is one of the best ways to ensure every messaging system tries to be tje best they can be.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bdcs 6y ago

Mobilecoin (Foundation) is a technological, ethical, and legal tour de force. I recommend you read their FAQ, but, to me anyway, it is obvious why Signal/Moxie needed to create a new coin (tl;dr: It needed to be a private venmo-like experience). To prevent conflicts of interest, a new org was created. Hence Mobilecoin, not SignalCoin. A few highlights: Technological: * First Oblivious RAM implementation, "fog", so that transacting parties cannot be revealed * Their Rust codebase is really nice * Instant transfers with little computing power (CO2 emissions) Ethical: * Moxie and Josh Goldbard hold no MOB, along with the employees. The Mobilecoin foundation has some awesome partners, e.g. the Long Now Foundation. * Mining is not ethical, it pollutes the planet and is just bad. The only alternative is a "pre-mine" given to an independent org, ie Mobilecoin Foundation Legal: * The US's laws are not clear on what is allowable with privacy coins, so Mobilecoin has played it conservatively by saying US residents can't own the coins. In summary, the critiques of Mobilecoin (in any of its incarnations, foundation, moxie, etc.) are assuming the agents involved have a financial interest in MOB being expensive -- I contend that is not the case. Please show your evidence. PS. I am assuming good faith and honesty in statements, eg "Marlinspike notes, however, that neither he nor Signal own any MobileCoins." https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messaging-cryptocurrency/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messa... PPS. Some direct responses: >Let's assume that they integrated with Bitcoin or Litecoin or some "mainstream" CC, would it still be a good idea? No, not private. Also slow. Also pollutes planet. Monero is close on the privacy front, but takes 3 minutes to send (very stressful). It's possible a coin with the proper attributes could be made on stellar, but that raises questions towards ownership of Lumens (and pumping them) and their stellar reimplementation in Rust is likely more secure. >Niche coin nit: MOB has a top 15 market cap with 250m coins in distribution. Though I would hesitate to compare to other cryptocurrencies which are almost entirely scammy, polluting garbage.

Igelau 6y ago
> Moxie and Josh Goldbard hold no MOB, along with the employees Right, the foundation sells the premined crypto-currency at a pumped up price. The foundation pays Goldbard and Moxie for their work. Employees are paid from the VC. No one connected has to hold any of it, nor will they want to after the dump.

xg15 6y ago

> I'm willing to give the Signal devs the benefit of the doubt How many "benefit of the doubt" cards do they have left by now?

xvector 6y ago
Zero. This was an obvious get rich quick scheme. They intentionally fragmented the space of privacy coins to profit off of a frankly disgusting pump and dump.