9 ms·

In Defense of Signal

65 points by xur17 6y ago

ggm 6y ago
BDFL vs public governance body. Ask yourselves which you want, and why. I truly believe, what we're seeing is consequences of governance. If you care about why decisions are made, you need a very particular kind of BDFL. (Happy signal user btw, no axe to grind. I am commenting how I see the meta quality of what went on with this decision.)
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
I don't see what the big deal is at all. I'm glad to see them innovating and extending crypto to the masses in a user-friendly and private way. It's more than I see most crypto teams doing.
- fwn 6y ago
  I think that most criticism comes from the choice to include their wallet into Signal, a private messaging app. I'm pretty certain a MobileCoin wallet app in the play store would've been well received by those who are interested in the concept of MobileCoin. Users that are interested in both Signal and MobileCoin could just install both apps side by side. The decision to link this coin to signal appears to me to be a decision to compete with other cryptocurrencies not by merit of being a better payment solution but by reach. Facebook and Google frequently make this decision (reach instead of merit) and HN regularly criticizes them for it. I think it is fair and honest to criticize Signal for it as well.
- CynicusRex 6y ago
  The big deal is that «any new “currency” or speculative digital token that doesn't have a fair distribution mechanism is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme by default. Hence, not a currency. The earliest adopters of such flawed contrivances will always have an increasingly disproportionate amount of the total wealth as it gets adopted. Early adopters mine or buy large proportions of the total supply at negligible costs while late adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large costs. It follows that holders immediately have every incentive to get as many people to buy after them.» —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
  - jcbrand 6y ago
    With Bitcoin, you've had ten years to acquire some, in multiple different ways. It's about as fair as one can hope for while being permissionless and not requiring identification. In the early days Bitcoin was given away for free via faucets, you just had to create a wallet The existing fiat currencies suffer the same issue. It's called the Cantillon effect. People who are closest to newly created currency units (mostly financial insiders) pay lower interest rates and have more buying power with that money. They can also immediately turn around and lend the currency out at higher rates, pocketing the difference.
    - CynicusRex 6y ago
      > you've had ten years to acquire some That makes it a ten-year-old pyramid scheme. It may be born from noteworthy ideals, but its flaws have become more apparent over the years. Stephen Diehl succinctly puts why the bubble has lasted so long: “Writing about bitcoin for a lay audience is challenging. If people know enough about tech alone they might think there's no problem, if they know enough about finance alone they might think there's no problem. If people know enough about both then they know it's all a big scam.” —https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1363898199010852869 https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1363898199010852869 > The existing fiat currencies suffer the same issue. Bitcoin touting to be the future of money while having the same if not more problems than fiat currencies is exactly why it deserves all the scrutiny it can get.
      - jcbrand 6y ago
        > Bitcoin touting to be the future of money while having the same if not more problems than fiat currencies is exactly why it deserves all the scrutiny it can get. I'm totally on board that Bitcoin should be scrutinized and examined critically. Concerning the Cantillon effect, in the fiat system, the beneficiaries are the already rich and well connected insiders. Recent central bank monetary interventions are major drivers of inequality by pushing up the asset prices of the rich while the poor suffer joblessness and inflation. With Bitcoin, new units are created in fierce and open competition, and not handed out to insiders.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  I think the key to understanding people's dismay is not seeing the Signal team as yet another 'crypto team'. People aren't hoping for Signal to do better than other cryptocurrencies; they're hoping for them to do better than the other messengers, and are afraid that crypto will jeopardise that. I'm in more of a 'let's wait and see' mode (see: this article), but I understand the worry.
  - qqii 6y ago
    Signal's developers are not MobileCoin's developers though. All Signal's developers have done is integrate the work of MobileCoin into their backend (fog) and client (fog wallet).
    - iudqnolq 6y ago
      However, that integration took a year, which we know because they made their development private while they worked on it. I'd call that a non-insignificant impact, both in terms of what else they could have worked on in the portion of their time they spent on it, and because it moviated them to hide their source code.
      - qqii 6y ago
        I get the point but it's misleading to attribute the entire year to integrating payments. The server code base has historically had periods of non public updates and doing a quick grep of the commit log payments first appears in October 2020. It's been clear since 2017 that Moxie has wanted to integrate payments to "stay competitive", so such effort was always on the schedule.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        Absolutely. I tried to get that across with "portion of the time", but I realize that wasn't clear. I meant to imply that if it took a year in clock time it took non-insignificant person-hours, which I think is reasonable. I also tried to get across that if payments caused the code to be private for a year, that's also a downside
- bjohnson225 6y ago
  User friendly? Can’t be bought in the US, and for the remainder it will only cause headaches for anyone who just wants to be paid but have now received some unusable nonsense instead.
  - kijin 6y ago
    The feature is opt-in. You will not receive any unusable nonsense unless you choose to be paid in such. For American users, nothing has changed.
    - bjohnson225 6y ago
      Yes, but I can’t imagine more than a negligible percentage of the Signal user base opting in because it’s anything but user friendly as a solution.
chaps 6y ago
"Won’t governments ban Signal now? So far, we haven’t seen any indication this will happen. It has been possible to install open-source Monero wallets in the App Store and Play Store nearly anywhere in the world for many years now (excluding authoritarian countries — but they’ve already banned Signal anyway). For the most part, non-custodial cryptocurrency wallets are easily accessible." Really...? Edit: "excluding authoritarian countries" doesn't help your case in the way you think it does.. "Some jurisdictions have gone even further and imposed restrictions on investments in cryptocurrencies, the extent of which varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some (Algeria, Bolivia, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, and Vietnam) ban any and all activities involving cryptocurrencies." [1] Signal being banned in Iran. [2] Signal being banned in China. [3] They also mention that this isn't a money grab because Signal needs funding. Signal has a 105 million dollar "loan" with zero interest with a repayment requirement in 2068. This opinion piece is a joke. [1] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/world-survey.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/world-survey.php [2] https://signal.org/blog/help-iran-reconnect/ https://signal.org/blog/help-iran-reconnect/ [3] https://www.protocol.com/is-signal-blocked-in-china https://www.protocol.com/is-signal-blocked-in-china
- brnt 6y ago
  You reply is some quotes, establishing that in two countries Signal was already blocked, and an exclamation. I fail to see how you reached your conclusion.
  - chaps 6y ago
    Do you really not see how the blanket banning of cryptocurrency and the blanket banning of signal itself isn't a tad bit of an indication that signal will get more blanket bans when combining the two? They're fundamentally saying that no inductive evidence exists despite clear inductive evidence existing. Seriously, what more do you want?
    - brnt 6y ago
      Blanket banning of crypto is, as you wrote, limited to the usual suspects. In the EU it's treated like any other asset, my tax office here has been asking me to declare any, alongside (foreign) cash, banks, etc for years now. So no, more blanket banning does not seems likely to me.
Proven 6y ago
The article raises valid points and has succeeded to make me dislike the idea much less than several days ago. If Signal could offer a plugin and take a cut of all payments (whatever the currency) made in the app, that would be better. To support just one cryptocurrency decided is suboptimal.
vorticalbox 6y ago
In defence of signal. I didn't even notice they added it until I read this article.
- Kina 6y ago
  AFAIK, this is only activated for UK users.
  - vorticalbox 6y ago
    I'm in the UK and it's in the settings with a (beta) label. I had zero idea it was released
  - justincormack 6y ago
    I can’t see it in the UK iOS app.
    - xwx 6y ago
      It's only available in the beta builds at the moment.
jonseager 6y ago
This is a tough one, I feel like Moxie has broadly acted in a way that should illicit a reaction that assumes good intent from most people. And if nothing else, they’re not forcing upon users who don’t explicitly want to use it - choice is okay, even if you don’t agree with the choices of others... It was an interesting move to adopt a coin like MobileCoin, but honestly it seems well reasoned, and at least as valid as most of the suitable alternatives from a technical standpoint. My only hope is that the added overheard of interacting more with the financial world doesn’t detract to much time from keeping the core messaging functions great - time will tell but I suspect they’ll work it out.
- dTal 6y ago
  >I feel like Moxie has broadly acted in a way that should illicit a reaction that assumes good intent from most people. I don't. Drew Devault articulates some reasons why[0], but it's an opinion I held before he wrote that. It was a pattern I first noticed reading Moxie's justifications for removing encrypted SMS[1]. [0] https://drewdevault.com/2018/08/08/Signal.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/08/08/Signal.html [1] https://signal.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/ https://signal.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/ p.s. "illicit" means illegal. You mean "elicit".
Vinnl 6y ago
One other thing to add: the announcement article also explicitly lists MobileCoin as the first type of crypto they've added. I have no idea if there are others that satisfy the requirements of speed and untraceability, but I guess that's relevant to those asking 'why not x'. Which is to add to the article's conclusion: it might be too early to judge.
freebuju 6y ago
If this guy was a lawyer representing me in a court, I be in jail by noon. His defense seems to call on the reader's (jury) optimistic nature too much when the stakes on the line are cut and dry. All jokes aside, excusing Signal for doing this would be bad. For the many users who would be exposed to the potential security threats that abound with this new payment integrations. Am no crypto-head but I've seen negative criticism too about this new coin being added. Signal seems to have built a good reputation of trust among privacy communities, despite having questionable anchors such as requirement of phone numbers for use and trusting only their centralized server. This sudden change in direction puts this app in even more shakier grounds. I'm glad the true intentions behind this app are now coming to light. More scrutiny is best for Signal.
- qqii 6y ago
  Not to excuse signal but has the response really been justified for a beta feature being tested in a single country? The signal press release and activity on the forums makes it clear that they're asking for feedback. Their intentions were never hidden either, you can see interviews dating 2017 thst matches their current stance.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    They’re asking for feedback? Then the response is justified. If you’re doing payment processing then you need to abide by AML and KYC laws, which are incompatible with secure messaging.
    - qqii 6y ago
      They're not doing payment proceeding, it's just a wallet.
      - davidgerard 6y ago
        If money moves over the network, it's payment processing. I urge you to review FinCEN guidance on "convertible virtual currencies". https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20CVC%20Guidance%20FINAL.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20... Similar regulations apply in most of the developed world. FATF regulations on virtual currencies only get tighter.
kowlo 6y ago
What are the alternatives to Signal? edit: I'd like to have something self-hosted!
- webmobdev 6y ago
  GNU Jami - https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/
- logikblok 6y ago
  Have you explored https://element.io/ https://element.io/?
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Encrypted snail mail?
- baby 6y ago
  Whatsapp, which implements the signal protocol as well.
  - croes 6y ago
    Where can I look into WhatsApp's client and server code?
- l3db3tt3r 6y ago
  I'm currently following the progress of https://getsession.org/ https://getsession.org/ From what I have gathered, it is a fork of Signal, that tries to solve some of the issues with it - tied to phone# - meta-data from the network you use it on. I don't know that it is prime time ready, but the entirety of the project (w/ oden, lokinet) is an interesting project.
shp0ngle 6y ago
yeah because Keybase embrace of Stellar worked out so well for them. Almost as much as Kik and Kin (or whatever was that), as well as Telegram and TON.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  I got 700€ worth of free Stellar from them. Not complaining :D Moved my Stellar out, exchanged to BTC and stopped using Keybase.
- baby 6y ago
  Do you mean it didn’t work for keybase? What do you mean by that?
Tistron 6y ago
Didn't telegram just create some kind of broadcast rooms that you can pay to attend? Or clubhouse, or both? Maybe we'll see those kinds of features in signal too? Not saying I want that, I'm not a user of either of those apps, but it does seem like something some people want. I mean to point that out as a potential reason for this to be be in signal and not a separate app. It's weird to see that it written about as crypto in a messenger app is novel though, as my keybase app let's me chat to friends and send lumens to them if I want to. That feature was also criticised a lot if I remember correctly, though it never bothered me.
hardwaresofton 6y ago
I'm more interested in the tin foil hat theory (that I saw mentioned on HN) that this might be signal telling you it's been compromised. The crypto stuff isn't great, but just... dont' touch it if you don't like it. It's unfortunate that it's there, but this is the trade-off for everyone not running their own Matrix homeservers. IMO Signal is still the best choice out there by far.
- qqii 6y ago
  I hate that theory for a number of reasons. It avoids so much evidence of Signals past controversial changes, Moxie's past interviews about MobileCoin and his current tweets or the amount of work done to create MobileCoin. Even a quick look into it creates many holes that can only be filled with speculation.
  - hardwaresofton 6y ago
    Yeah I really have no idea what's going on but I can say for sure that I didn't think of the possibility of it being a canary of some sort until I read that, so it was eye opening to me. I was (and still am) definitely under-informed on Moxie's past interviews about the coin and the other stuff -- I just looked around and it was discussed on HN in 2017[0] (!!). I honestly mostly steer clear of Moxie and the other stuff related to Signal -- I personally was really annoyed with the phone number thing, but I can make peace with the fact that Signal is concerned with privacy, mass appeal, and then maybe some anonymity. I am getting a ton of value for absolutely free. In the end, the code is open source, and that is the difference that puts it above the other choices with mass appeal. For me it was basically Signal or Telegram -- there are some other F/OSS options, but they just don't have the mass appeal for me to use with friends. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935583
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  > that this might be signal telling you it's been compromised. > IMO Signal is still the best choice out there by far. I'm a little confused. How do you decide to excuse MobileCoin as a cry for help and then decide to ignore it?
Thorentis 6y ago
Putting aside the "should Signal add payment features" debate, I think the biggest issue is the fact that Signal chose to integrate a crypto which appears to be nothing other than a money making scheme for its creators. There are other existing privacy oriented cryptos. The whole thing smells like a scam, and loyal Signal advocates feel like they're being taken for a ride.
- qqii 6y ago
  I think the article does a decent job at explaining why signal didn't go with existing privacy cryptocurrencies. The two points are: * Signal wants to make money (and they cite Tor as an example of the problems of not making money) * Monero's isn't fast enough. The first point obviously isn't really very good defense and the second point could be considered refuted by this tweet[0]. Monero is simply unlikely to reduce their block time or the number of confirmation blocks. Given the work in integrating SGX, Stellar Consensus and fog calling it a scam is going too far but its not a good look for sure. [0]: https://nitter.dark.fail/moxie/status/1379560902463119361#m https://nitter.dark.fail/moxie/status/1379560902463119361#m
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    My own opinion is that Signal doesn't need to pick a single crypto, but if they'd wanted to integrate payments they should have created some kind of integration with an existing payment platform like Bitpay. It's clear that the real intent was to make money, and it's unfortunate that they haven't been upfront about this.
  - hyc_symas 6y ago
    This tweet made the point about speed more explicitly https://nitter.dark.fail/_geonic/status/1379965832369823744#m https://nitter.dark.fail/_geonic/status/1379965832369823744#... Block time isn't really the obstacle the detractors are claiming it is.
    - qqii 6y ago
      As the article describes you cannot spend any transaction until a fixed number of block confirmations. This is a non issue if you already have coins in your wallet but it's not a very pleasant first time experience.
frereubu 6y ago
I spent a few weeks recently persuading two relatively large groups of non-technical people (50+ people in each) to move from WhatsApp to Signal. I absolutely hate this move from Signal, and this blog post makes no difference whatsoever to that feeling. The idea of private messaging is a relatively easy one to talk to people about. Adding cryptocurrencies into the mix - when, fairly or unfairly, news coverage about it is mostly about financial speculation, the "dark web" and illegal drugs - is a terrible idea if the idea behind Signal is broad uptake of a secure messaging app that doesn't have links to companies like Facebook. Whether the settings are buried or not people will find out about this as time passes, and when they do it's going to create distrust. As others have suggested, if you want to do cryptocurrencies, why not create a separate "Signal Wallet" app or something? Although even that won't help the fact that it will tarnish the "Signal" brand in the eyes of many.
- cageface 6y ago
  I finally managed to move a big chunk of my friends over to Signal after almost a year of gentle but steady encouragement. Now I wish I hadn't bothered. I'm sure I won't be able to get them to move again and I've lost my confidence that any other new solution will be trustworthy. Maybe the devil you know in WhatsApp is better than more nasty surprises like this?
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    GNU Jami - https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/ - is what you needed to promote. There's a very good reason most of the commercial messengers never mention it when they compare themselves to other messengers ... it's the obvious winner.
    - raspyberr 6y ago
      I think Jami is great. Not having offline messages would be a pretty killer disadvantage to regular people though right?
      - 6y ago
baby 6y ago
Completely agree with this post. Moxie it you’re reading this: remember, bad publicity is still publicity. Haters are going to hate, but Signal is now founded for a while!
- tromp 6y ago
  Indeed, signal is now founded in moral hazards.
nextstep 6y ago
I was disappointed when I first heard Signal was adding this (and not using Mondeo) but these points male sense. I almost certainly won’t use it, and probably none of my close friends either, and it sounds like it can be disable entirely in the app so I don’t really care.
qqii 6y ago
I'm glad someone has written this article as the converse on HN has been overly negative. This is an article I would have probably written so I'd like to add: > Third, private transaction retrieval requires downloading blocks to your phone and manually filtering them. If you’ve ever used the Monero CakeWallet, you’ll know it can sometimes take quite a while before everything is synced and you actually see your full balance. MobileCoin solves this by using fog, which allows for instant and private transaction retrieval without putting a heavy computational load on your phone. MyMonero and OpenMonero is this kind of light wallet and has similar privacy guarentees. Fog is still vulnerable to timing based attacks. > Even if you assume that Intel SGX is completely broken in every way possible, MobileCoin provides at least the same amount of privacy as Monero. The purpose of SGX is to provide defense-in-depth by potentially mitigating heuristic analysis that CryptoNote protocols are vulnerable to. Federation fundimentally offers less privacy guarentees and relies on trusting the nodes and fog servers. Malicious actors can perform all kinds of timing attacks. > If anyone has read through Josh Goldbard’s comments on Hacker News, you will undoubtedly understand the frustration here. In multiple instances, he simply avoids answering a question altogether in his replies. I don’t believe he is trying to hide any foul play here. This is quite an optemistic take, even other cryptocurrencies are more transparent about their initial token sale price, companies and amount purchased, distribution schedule, etc. The article also doesn't touch on MobileCoin's lack of credit for Monero[0] and the founding engineer's now deleted post about the Monero codebase[1]. [0]: https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/1379559273504641025 https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/13795592735046410... [1]: https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/1379604541390344194 https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/13796045413903441...

65 points by xur17 6y ago

ggm 6y ago

BDFL vs public governance body. Ask yourselves which you want, and why. I truly believe, what we're seeing is consequences of governance. If you care about why decisions are made, you need a very particular kind of BDFL. (Happy signal user btw, no axe to grind. I am commenting how I see the meta quality of what went on with this decision.)

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago

I don't see what the big deal is at all. I'm glad to see them innovating and extending crypto to the masses in a user-friendly and private way. It's more than I see most crypto teams doing.

fwn 6y ago
I think that most criticism comes from the choice to include their wallet into Signal, a private messaging app. I'm pretty certain a MobileCoin wallet app in the play store would've been well received by those who are interested in the concept of MobileCoin. Users that are interested in both Signal and MobileCoin could just install both apps side by side. The decision to link this coin to signal appears to me to be a decision to compete with other cryptocurrencies not by merit of being a better payment solution but by reach. Facebook and Google frequently make this decision (reach instead of merit) and HN regularly criticizes them for it. I think it is fair and honest to criticize Signal for it as well.
CynicusRex 6y ago
The big deal is that «any new “currency” or speculative digital token that doesn't have a fair distribution mechanism is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme by default. Hence, not a currency. The earliest adopters of such flawed contrivances will always have an increasingly disproportionate amount of the total wealth as it gets adopted. Early adopters mine or buy large proportions of the total supply at negligible costs while late adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large costs. It follows that holders immediately have every incentive to get as many people to buy after them.» —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
- jcbrand 6y ago
  With Bitcoin, you've had ten years to acquire some, in multiple different ways. It's about as fair as one can hope for while being permissionless and not requiring identification. In the early days Bitcoin was given away for free via faucets, you just had to create a wallet The existing fiat currencies suffer the same issue. It's called the Cantillon effect. People who are closest to newly created currency units (mostly financial insiders) pay lower interest rates and have more buying power with that money. They can also immediately turn around and lend the currency out at higher rates, pocketing the difference.
  - CynicusRex 6y ago
    > you've had ten years to acquire some That makes it a ten-year-old pyramid scheme. It may be born from noteworthy ideals, but its flaws have become more apparent over the years. Stephen Diehl succinctly puts why the bubble has lasted so long: “Writing about bitcoin for a lay audience is challenging. If people know enough about tech alone they might think there's no problem, if they know enough about finance alone they might think there's no problem. If people know enough about both then they know it's all a big scam.” —https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1363898199010852869 https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1363898199010852869 > The existing fiat currencies suffer the same issue. Bitcoin touting to be the future of money while having the same if not more problems than fiat currencies is exactly why it deserves all the scrutiny it can get.
    - jcbrand 6y ago
      > Bitcoin touting to be the future of money while having the same if not more problems than fiat currencies is exactly why it deserves all the scrutiny it can get. I'm totally on board that Bitcoin should be scrutinized and examined critically. Concerning the Cantillon effect, in the fiat system, the beneficiaries are the already rich and well connected insiders. Recent central bank monetary interventions are major drivers of inequality by pushing up the asset prices of the rich while the poor suffer joblessness and inflation. With Bitcoin, new units are created in fierce and open competition, and not handed out to insiders.
Vinnl 6y ago
I think the key to understanding people's dismay is not seeing the Signal team as yet another 'crypto team'. People aren't hoping for Signal to do better than other cryptocurrencies; they're hoping for them to do better than the other messengers, and are afraid that crypto will jeopardise that. I'm in more of a 'let's wait and see' mode (see: this article), but I understand the worry.
- qqii 6y ago
  Signal's developers are not MobileCoin's developers though. All Signal's developers have done is integrate the work of MobileCoin into their backend (fog) and client (fog wallet).
  - iudqnolq 6y ago
    However, that integration took a year, which we know because they made their development private while they worked on it. I'd call that a non-insignificant impact, both in terms of what else they could have worked on in the portion of their time they spent on it, and because it moviated them to hide their source code.
    - qqii 6y ago
      I get the point but it's misleading to attribute the entire year to integrating payments. The server code base has historically had periods of non public updates and doing a quick grep of the commit log payments first appears in October 2020. It's been clear since 2017 that Moxie has wanted to integrate payments to "stay competitive", so such effort was always on the schedule.
      - iudqnolq 6y ago
        Absolutely. I tried to get that across with "portion of the time", but I realize that wasn't clear. I meant to imply that if it took a year in clock time it took non-insignificant person-hours, which I think is reasonable. I also tried to get across that if payments caused the code to be private for a year, that's also a downside
bjohnson225 6y ago
User friendly? Can’t be bought in the US, and for the remainder it will only cause headaches for anyone who just wants to be paid but have now received some unusable nonsense instead.
- kijin 6y ago
  The feature is opt-in. You will not receive any unusable nonsense unless you choose to be paid in such. For American users, nothing has changed.
  - bjohnson225 6y ago
    Yes, but I can’t imagine more than a negligible percentage of the Signal user base opting in because it’s anything but user friendly as a solution.

chaps 6y ago

"Won’t governments ban Signal now? So far, we haven’t seen any indication this will happen. It has been possible to install open-source Monero wallets in the App Store and Play Store nearly anywhere in the world for many years now (excluding authoritarian countries — but they’ve already banned Signal anyway). For the most part, non-custodial cryptocurrency wallets are easily accessible." Really...? Edit: "excluding authoritarian countries" doesn't help your case in the way you think it does.. "Some jurisdictions have gone even further and imposed restrictions on investments in cryptocurrencies, the extent of which varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some (Algeria, Bolivia, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, and Vietnam) ban any and all activities involving cryptocurrencies." [1] Signal being banned in Iran. [2] Signal being banned in China. [3] They also mention that this isn't a money grab because Signal needs funding. Signal has a 105 million dollar "loan" with zero interest with a repayment requirement in 2068. This opinion piece is a joke. [1] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/world-survey.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/world-survey.php [2] https://signal.org/blog/help-iran-reconnect/ https://signal.org/blog/help-iran-reconnect/ [3] https://www.protocol.com/is-signal-blocked-in-china https://www.protocol.com/is-signal-blocked-in-china

brnt 6y ago
You reply is some quotes, establishing that in two countries Signal was already blocked, and an exclamation. I fail to see how you reached your conclusion.
- chaps 6y ago
  Do you really not see how the blanket banning of cryptocurrency and the blanket banning of signal itself isn't a tad bit of an indication that signal will get more blanket bans when combining the two? They're fundamentally saying that no inductive evidence exists despite clear inductive evidence existing. Seriously, what more do you want?
  - brnt 6y ago
    Blanket banning of crypto is, as you wrote, limited to the usual suspects. In the EU it's treated like any other asset, my tax office here has been asking me to declare any, alongside (foreign) cash, banks, etc for years now. So no, more blanket banning does not seems likely to me.

Proven 6y ago

The article raises valid points and has succeeded to make me dislike the idea much less than several days ago. If Signal could offer a plugin and take a cut of all payments (whatever the currency) made in the app, that would be better. To support just one cryptocurrency decided is suboptimal.

vorticalbox 6y ago

In defence of signal. I didn't even notice they added it until I read this article.

Kina 6y ago
AFAIK, this is only activated for UK users.
- vorticalbox 6y ago
  I'm in the UK and it's in the settings with a (beta) label. I had zero idea it was released
- justincormack 6y ago
  I can’t see it in the UK iOS app.
  - xwx 6y ago
    It's only available in the beta builds at the moment.

jonseager 6y ago

This is a tough one, I feel like Moxie has broadly acted in a way that should illicit a reaction that assumes good intent from most people. And if nothing else, they’re not forcing upon users who don’t explicitly want to use it - choice is okay, even if you don’t agree with the choices of others... It was an interesting move to adopt a coin like MobileCoin, but honestly it seems well reasoned, and at least as valid as most of the suitable alternatives from a technical standpoint. My only hope is that the added overheard of interacting more with the financial world doesn’t detract to much time from keeping the core messaging functions great - time will tell but I suspect they’ll work it out.

dTal 6y ago
>I feel like Moxie has broadly acted in a way that should illicit a reaction that assumes good intent from most people. I don't. Drew Devault articulates some reasons why[0], but it's an opinion I held before he wrote that. It was a pattern I first noticed reading Moxie's justifications for removing encrypted SMS[1]. [0] https://drewdevault.com/2018/08/08/Signal.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/08/08/Signal.html [1] https://signal.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/ https://signal.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/ p.s. "illicit" means illegal. You mean "elicit".

Vinnl 6y ago

One other thing to add: the announcement article also explicitly lists MobileCoin as the first type of crypto they've added. I have no idea if there are others that satisfy the requirements of speed and untraceability, but I guess that's relevant to those asking 'why not x'. Which is to add to the article's conclusion: it might be too early to judge.

freebuju 6y ago

If this guy was a lawyer representing me in a court, I be in jail by noon. His defense seems to call on the reader's (jury) optimistic nature too much when the stakes on the line are cut and dry. All jokes aside, excusing Signal for doing this would be bad. For the many users who would be exposed to the potential security threats that abound with this new payment integrations. Am no crypto-head but I've seen negative criticism too about this new coin being added. Signal seems to have built a good reputation of trust among privacy communities, despite having questionable anchors such as requirement of phone numbers for use and trusting only their centralized server. This sudden change in direction puts this app in even more shakier grounds. I'm glad the true intentions behind this app are now coming to light. More scrutiny is best for Signal.

qqii 6y ago
Not to excuse signal but has the response really been justified for a beta feature being tested in a single country? The signal press release and activity on the forums makes it clear that they're asking for feedback. Their intentions were never hidden either, you can see interviews dating 2017 thst matches their current stance.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  They’re asking for feedback? Then the response is justified. If you’re doing payment processing then you need to abide by AML and KYC laws, which are incompatible with secure messaging.
  - qqii 6y ago
    They're not doing payment proceeding, it's just a wallet.
    - davidgerard 6y ago
      If money moves over the network, it's payment processing. I urge you to review FinCEN guidance on "convertible virtual currencies". https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20CVC%20Guidance%20FINAL.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20... Similar regulations apply in most of the developed world. FATF regulations on virtual currencies only get tighter.

kowlo 6y ago

What are the alternatives to Signal? edit: I'd like to have something self-hosted!

webmobdev 6y ago
GNU Jami - https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/
logikblok 6y ago
Have you explored https://element.io/ https://element.io/?
Daho0n 6y ago
Encrypted snail mail?
baby 6y ago
Whatsapp, which implements the signal protocol as well.
- croes 6y ago
  Where can I look into WhatsApp's client and server code?
l3db3tt3r 6y ago
I'm currently following the progress of https://getsession.org/ https://getsession.org/ From what I have gathered, it is a fork of Signal, that tries to solve some of the issues with it - tied to phone# - meta-data from the network you use it on. I don't know that it is prime time ready, but the entirety of the project (w/ oden, lokinet) is an interesting project.

shp0ngle 6y ago

yeah because Keybase embrace of Stellar worked out so well for them. Almost as much as Kik and Kin (or whatever was that), as well as Telegram and TON.

theshrike79 6y ago
I got 700€ worth of free Stellar from them. Not complaining :D Moved my Stellar out, exchanged to BTC and stopped using Keybase.
baby 6y ago
Do you mean it didn’t work for keybase? What do you mean by that?

Tistron 6y ago

Didn't telegram just create some kind of broadcast rooms that you can pay to attend? Or clubhouse, or both? Maybe we'll see those kinds of features in signal too? Not saying I want that, I'm not a user of either of those apps, but it does seem like something some people want. I mean to point that out as a potential reason for this to be be in signal and not a separate app. It's weird to see that it written about as crypto in a messenger app is novel though, as my keybase app let's me chat to friends and send lumens to them if I want to. That feature was also criticised a lot if I remember correctly, though it never bothered me.

hardwaresofton 6y ago

I'm more interested in the tin foil hat theory (that I saw mentioned on HN) that this might be signal telling you it's been compromised. The crypto stuff isn't great, but just... dont' touch it if you don't like it. It's unfortunate that it's there, but this is the trade-off for everyone not running their own Matrix homeservers. IMO Signal is still the best choice out there by far.

qqii 6y ago
I hate that theory for a number of reasons. It avoids so much evidence of Signals past controversial changes, Moxie's past interviews about MobileCoin and his current tweets or the amount of work done to create MobileCoin. Even a quick look into it creates many holes that can only be filled with speculation.
- hardwaresofton 6y ago
  Yeah I really have no idea what's going on but I can say for sure that I didn't think of the possibility of it being a canary of some sort until I read that, so it was eye opening to me. I was (and still am) definitely under-informed on Moxie's past interviews about the coin and the other stuff -- I just looked around and it was discussed on HN in 2017[0] (!!). I honestly mostly steer clear of Moxie and the other stuff related to Signal -- I personally was really annoyed with the phone number thing, but I can make peace with the fact that Signal is concerned with privacy, mass appeal, and then maybe some anonymity. I am getting a ton of value for absolutely free. In the end, the code is open source, and that is the difference that puts it above the other choices with mass appeal. For me it was basically Signal or Telegram -- there are some other F/OSS options, but they just don't have the mass appeal for me to use with friends. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935583
iudqnolq 6y ago
> that this might be signal telling you it's been compromised. > IMO Signal is still the best choice out there by far. I'm a little confused. How do you decide to excuse MobileCoin as a cry for help and then decide to ignore it?

Thorentis 6y ago

Putting aside the "should Signal add payment features" debate, I think the biggest issue is the fact that Signal chose to integrate a crypto which appears to be nothing other than a money making scheme for its creators. There are other existing privacy oriented cryptos. The whole thing smells like a scam, and loyal Signal advocates feel like they're being taken for a ride.

qqii 6y ago
I think the article does a decent job at explaining why signal didn't go with existing privacy cryptocurrencies. The two points are: * Signal wants to make money (and they cite Tor as an example of the problems of not making money) * Monero's isn't fast enough. The first point obviously isn't really very good defense and the second point could be considered refuted by this tweet[0]. Monero is simply unlikely to reduce their block time or the number of confirmation blocks. Given the work in integrating SGX, Stellar Consensus and fog calling it a scam is going too far but its not a good look for sure. [0]: https://nitter.dark.fail/moxie/status/1379560902463119361#m https://nitter.dark.fail/moxie/status/1379560902463119361#m
- Thorentis 6y ago
  My own opinion is that Signal doesn't need to pick a single crypto, but if they'd wanted to integrate payments they should have created some kind of integration with an existing payment platform like Bitpay. It's clear that the real intent was to make money, and it's unfortunate that they haven't been upfront about this.
- hyc_symas 6y ago
  This tweet made the point about speed more explicitly https://nitter.dark.fail/_geonic/status/1379965832369823744#m https://nitter.dark.fail/_geonic/status/1379965832369823744#... Block time isn't really the obstacle the detractors are claiming it is.
  - qqii 6y ago
    As the article describes you cannot spend any transaction until a fixed number of block confirmations. This is a non issue if you already have coins in your wallet but it's not a very pleasant first time experience.

frereubu 6y ago

I spent a few weeks recently persuading two relatively large groups of non-technical people (50+ people in each) to move from WhatsApp to Signal. I absolutely hate this move from Signal, and this blog post makes no difference whatsoever to that feeling. The idea of private messaging is a relatively easy one to talk to people about. Adding cryptocurrencies into the mix - when, fairly or unfairly, news coverage about it is mostly about financial speculation, the "dark web" and illegal drugs - is a terrible idea if the idea behind Signal is broad uptake of a secure messaging app that doesn't have links to companies like Facebook. Whether the settings are buried or not people will find out about this as time passes, and when they do it's going to create distrust. As others have suggested, if you want to do cryptocurrencies, why not create a separate "Signal Wallet" app or something? Although even that won't help the fact that it will tarnish the "Signal" brand in the eyes of many.

cageface 6y ago
I finally managed to move a big chunk of my friends over to Signal after almost a year of gentle but steady encouragement. Now I wish I hadn't bothered. I'm sure I won't be able to get them to move again and I've lost my confidence that any other new solution will be trustworthy. Maybe the devil you know in WhatsApp is better than more nasty surprises like this?
- webmobdev 6y ago
  GNU Jami - https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/ - is what you needed to promote. There's a very good reason most of the commercial messengers never mention it when they compare themselves to other messengers ... it's the obvious winner.
  - raspyberr 6y ago
    I think Jami is great. Not having offline messages would be a pretty killer disadvantage to regular people though right?
    - 6y ago

baby 6y ago

Completely agree with this post. Moxie it you’re reading this: remember, bad publicity is still publicity. Haters are going to hate, but Signal is now founded for a while!

tromp 6y ago
Indeed, signal is now founded in moral hazards.

nextstep 6y ago

I was disappointed when I first heard Signal was adding this (and not using Mondeo) but these points male sense. I almost certainly won’t use it, and probably none of my close friends either, and it sounds like it can be disable entirely in the app so I don’t really care.

qqii 6y ago

I'm glad someone has written this article as the converse on HN has been overly negative. This is an article I would have probably written so I'd like to add: > Third, private transaction retrieval requires downloading blocks to your phone and manually filtering them. If you’ve ever used the Monero CakeWallet, you’ll know it can sometimes take quite a while before everything is synced and you actually see your full balance. MobileCoin solves this by using fog, which allows for instant and private transaction retrieval without putting a heavy computational load on your phone. MyMonero and OpenMonero is this kind of light wallet and has similar privacy guarentees. Fog is still vulnerable to timing based attacks. > Even if you assume that Intel SGX is completely broken in every way possible, MobileCoin provides at least the same amount of privacy as Monero. The purpose of SGX is to provide defense-in-depth by potentially mitigating heuristic analysis that CryptoNote protocols are vulnerable to. Federation fundimentally offers less privacy guarentees and relies on trusting the nodes and fog servers. Malicious actors can perform all kinds of timing attacks. > If anyone has read through Josh Goldbard’s comments on Hacker News, you will undoubtedly understand the frustration here. In multiple instances, he simply avoids answering a question altogether in his replies. I don’t believe he is trying to hide any foul play here. This is quite an optemistic take, even other cryptocurrencies are more transparent about their initial token sale price, companies and amount purchased, distribution schedule, etc. The article also doesn't touch on MobileCoin's lack of credit for Monero[0] and the founding engineer's now deleted post about the Monero codebase[1]. [0]: https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/1379559273504641025 https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/13795592735046410... [1]: https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/1379604541390344194 https://nitter.dark.fail/fluffypony/status/13796045413903441...