3 ms·

Isn't the biggest question: Why not a different app with some sort of signal integration? If that takes off and is successful, it could eventually be merged to

Isn't the biggest question: Why not a different app with some sort of signal integration? If that takes off and is successful, it could eventually be merged to be one application I suppose. But leveraging a huge user base from Signal (a messaging app with a sales pitch of a certain purity and no bs attitude to the problem at hand) to push a cryptocurrency payment system? Don't tell me anyone involved in doing this felt like this was 'the right way to go'. Which makes exact motivation behind it all the more questionable.

hiq 6y ago
> But leveraging a huge user base from Signal (a messaging app with a sales pitch of a certain purity and no bs attitude to the problem at hand) to push a cryptocurrency payment system? > Don't tell me anyone involved in doing this felt like this was 'the right way to go'. Which makes exact motivation behind it all the more questionable. If this feature is to stay relevant, it has to be integrated within Signal. Otherwise competitors (who do integrate a payment feature) will just have a better UX. The choice was basically: 1. have the feature within Signal 2. have no user They chose 1.
- Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago
  I don't think that's honest. Signal has the reach to get plenty of beta-testers on board, enough to maybe grow it from there. I'm not saying that it isn't tougher to do this way, but it's not like a "Signal Payments" App with a similar Logo by the same outfit trusted by many people for secure messaging already, starts at absolute zero. Plenty of outfits would kill for the Signal IP to create something like a payments app.
  - hiq 6y ago
    > Signal has the reach to get plenty of beta-testers on board, enough to maybe grow it from there. I think we need a reality check here. When I check the Playstore, Signal has 50M downloads. WhatsApp has 2B. Signal is still largely the underdog. I could definitely imagine a few people using a "Signal Payments" app instead of whatever WA offers. But to actually compete with WhatsApp (which won't create a separate app), you can't afford to split the app in two. The aim is not that HN users are able to transfer money in a privacy-preserving way, it's that everybody can.
    - Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago
      If the illusion is that it's Signal's ultimate goal to dethrone WhatsApp (and Paypal for payments?), I think I'm not the one in need of a reality check (forgive the provocative wording, I have no ill will towards you). Signal's (meaning the app) goal should be to be a long-term, secure, honest alternative for more privacy minded users, no matter their technical expertise? At least that's what I'm thinking.
      - hiq 6y ago
        > Signal's ultimate goal to dethrone WhatsApp I see it more like setting the baseline for the whole ecosystem. If Signal allows me to do X privately, why can't WhatsApp? To have this clout, they need to keep a non negligible market share and remain a threat to other messengers, which you can't do if you miss features your competitors have and that users value.

hiq 6y ago

> But leveraging a huge user base from Signal (a messaging app with a sales pitch of a certain purity and no bs attitude to the problem at hand) to push a cryptocurrency payment system? > Don't tell me anyone involved in doing this felt like this was 'the right way to go'. Which makes exact motivation behind it all the more questionable. If this feature is to stay relevant, it has to be integrated within Signal. Otherwise competitors (who do integrate a payment feature) will just have a better UX. The choice was basically: 1. have the feature within Signal 2. have no user They chose 1.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago
I don't think that's honest. Signal has the reach to get plenty of beta-testers on board, enough to maybe grow it from there. I'm not saying that it isn't tougher to do this way, but it's not like a "Signal Payments" App with a similar Logo by the same outfit trusted by many people for secure messaging already, starts at absolute zero. Plenty of outfits would kill for the Signal IP to create something like a payments app.
- hiq 6y ago
  > Signal has the reach to get plenty of beta-testers on board, enough to maybe grow it from there. I think we need a reality check here. When I check the Playstore, Signal has 50M downloads. WhatsApp has 2B. Signal is still largely the underdog. I could definitely imagine a few people using a "Signal Payments" app instead of whatever WA offers. But to actually compete with WhatsApp (which won't create a separate app), you can't afford to split the app in two. The aim is not that HN users are able to transfer money in a privacy-preserving way, it's that everybody can.
  - Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago
    If the illusion is that it's Signal's ultimate goal to dethrone WhatsApp (and Paypal for payments?), I think I'm not the one in need of a reality check (forgive the provocative wording, I have no ill will towards you). Signal's (meaning the app) goal should be to be a long-term, secure, honest alternative for more privacy minded users, no matter their technical expertise? At least that's what I'm thinking.
    - hiq 6y ago
      > Signal's ultimate goal to dethrone WhatsApp I see it more like setting the baseline for the whole ecosystem. If Signal allows me to do X privately, why can't WhatsApp? To have this clout, they need to keep a non negligible market share and remain a threat to other messengers, which you can't do if you miss features your competitors have and that users value.