3 ms·
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 mon
by 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 agoMy 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 agoThis 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 agoAs 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.
- ac29 5y agoBut is ~20 minutes really such a deal breaker? For secure person to person payments, this really seems good enough. The network doesn't need to facilitate high frequency trading or something.