>are at least working on E2E So they're in the process of moving it from 1995 to 2004. That's great! If all you have on Signal is opt-in feature for payment,

>are at least working on E2E So they're in the process of moving it from 1995 to 2004. That's great! If all you have on Signal is opt-in feature for payment, and an issue of usernames that's being worked on -- but you want to offer as a solution a product that's for now, completely insecure by design (but it's being worked on), you're in dangerous waters. This is especially condemnable because the issue with Signal here is confidentiality of sensitive data. You'd replace a one-in-a-billion database key collision problem with 100% of content leaking to service provider that literally offered the Telegram defense "The AES256 key is on a DIFFERENT computer". It's not. It by definition of how computers work, can not be. The database key sits in the RAM of the database server doing the database commits. The CPU can't perform AES operations without the key, and the key isn't being quantum teleported from another machine's RAM to the registers of the computer doing the encryption. These guys have no idea how computer security works, yet you deem them worthy of your attention. This makes me question your expertise on the subject matter too.