5 ms·

This feels more interesting than most cryptocurrency uses. One thing a cryptocurrency can be is an open protocol for payments - it makes sense to try and make o

This feels more interesting than most cryptocurrency uses. One thing a cryptocurrency can be is an open protocol for payments - it makes sense to try and make one into such a protocol. The privacy preserving aspects of MobileCoin are interesting and feel like they fit with Signal too.

kelnos 5y ago
I am ridiculously negative on all things "crypto", but person-to-person payments (in fiat) are currently pretty annoying and limited (at least in the US, even with things like Venmo and Zelle), and integrating private payments with a privacy-preserving messenger would seem to be a good thing. I don't know if MobileCoin is the best solution here, but I also don't see Signal starting partnerships with big traditional banks or payment processors, either (and wouldn't really want to see Signal in bed with those sorts of folks). So something like this might be the right move, even though I'm unlikely to use it myself.
- XorNot 5y ago
  > and wouldn't really want to see Signal in bed with those sorts of folks Why? This has been ongoingly why we have bad encryption technology. No one wants to taint their ideological purity by trying to solve problems for organizations that can pay for them which would actually solve problems for private citizens, and simultaneously ensures that good technology doesn't secure important social interactions for private citizens. Why should I not be able to verify I'm talking to my bank through Signal? Why can't I have messages from my local government secured to me via Signal? It's a 2-sided problem, and one side is this bizarre rejection of any attempt at enterprise marketing for a platform with enterprise utility.
  - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
    Because we all saw where it leads with Google/FB. They might start by just doing the simple things you proposed. But once a government or bank is a customer, they would be the largest/most powerful customers by far. Meaning Signal would begin to bend to doing what those customers want, maybe collecting analytics or personal information, or selling your contact data to advertisers. Maybe one of those banks donates money to Signal and wants favors in return. The biggest customers of a company inevitably shape the incentives and behavior's within that company. easy to dismiss as a "slippery slope fallacy" but it's historically true. No one who's using Signal to get away from the shitty enterprises that built/own FB Messenger wants a repeat of the same thing. Even if you don't agree, many Signal users probably do, and it would be silly for Signal to piss off their customers.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
easrng 5y ago
IIRC the privacy aspect relies entirely on Intel SGX (Which isn't really unprecedented for Signal) which is not ideal. Since it's centralized anyway, I would rather have seen a blind-signature based payment system. It would be more private and probably more efficient.
- cxloe 5y ago
  It doesn't rely on SGX for privacy: https://developers.mobilecoin.com/faq https://developers.mobilecoin.com/faq
  - saurik 5y ago
    From what I remember reading, without SGX it is reliant on an older model of Monero that is missing a critical newer mitigation that prevents people from decloaking upwards of 80% of transactions due to a timing bias in how older transactions are selected for including in the ring signature.
anonporridge 5y ago
Do you have reason to believe MobileCoin scales any better than any other open blockchain protocol? I doubt it. Also, payments with free floating crypto like MobileCoin and bitcoin really isn't practical in most of the western world, due to the requirements of capital gains tax reporting, not to mention the instability of the price. MobileCoin is seriously behind the ball on this, even though it's a problem being actively solved on bitcoin's lightning network, https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459757-biggest-bitcoin-development-you-should-know-is-strike https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459757-biggest-bitcoin-dev...
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  That’s right and I stopped using Signal for that reason. Tax authorities have every right to look into any account that facilitates transactions in taxable assets (even just to confirm that no transactions have taken place) I have nothing in principle against crypto currencies and I am very much in favour of strong privacy for personal communication, but mixing the two is obviously contradictory. It completely defeats the purpose of Signal.
- davidgerard 5y ago
  also, MobileCoin is a permissioned blockchain with four nodes. It's the embodiment of "it's just a slow database."
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Do you have a source for this?
    - davidgerard 5y ago
      https://web.archive.org/web/20210408011945/https://www.mobilecoin.foundation/foundation-trusted-nodes https://web.archive.org/web/20210408011945/https://www.mobil... That was as of last April, the page has now been removed.

kelnos 5y ago

I am ridiculously negative on all things "crypto", but person-to-person payments (in fiat) are currently pretty annoying and limited (at least in the US, even with things like Venmo and Zelle), and integrating private payments with a privacy-preserving messenger would seem to be a good thing. I don't know if MobileCoin is the best solution here, but I also don't see Signal starting partnerships with big traditional banks or payment processors, either (and wouldn't really want to see Signal in bed with those sorts of folks). So something like this might be the right move, even though I'm unlikely to use it myself.

XorNot 5y ago
> and wouldn't really want to see Signal in bed with those sorts of folks Why? This has been ongoingly why we have bad encryption technology. No one wants to taint their ideological purity by trying to solve problems for organizations that can pay for them which would actually solve problems for private citizens, and simultaneously ensures that good technology doesn't secure important social interactions for private citizens. Why should I not be able to verify I'm talking to my bank through Signal? Why can't I have messages from my local government secured to me via Signal? It's a 2-sided problem, and one side is this bizarre rejection of any attempt at enterprise marketing for a platform with enterprise utility.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  Because we all saw where it leads with Google/FB. They might start by just doing the simple things you proposed. But once a government or bank is a customer, they would be the largest/most powerful customers by far. Meaning Signal would begin to bend to doing what those customers want, maybe collecting analytics or personal information, or selling your contact data to advertisers. Maybe one of those banks donates money to Signal and wants favors in return. The biggest customers of a company inevitably shape the incentives and behavior's within that company. easy to dismiss as a "slippery slope fallacy" but it's historically true. No one who's using Signal to get away from the shitty enterprises that built/own FB Messenger wants a repeat of the same thing. Even if you don't agree, many Signal users probably do, and it would be silly for Signal to piss off their customers.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

easrng 5y ago

IIRC the privacy aspect relies entirely on Intel SGX (Which isn't really unprecedented for Signal) which is not ideal. Since it's centralized anyway, I would rather have seen a blind-signature based payment system. It would be more private and probably more efficient.

cxloe 5y ago
It doesn't rely on SGX for privacy: https://developers.mobilecoin.com/faq https://developers.mobilecoin.com/faq
- saurik 5y ago
  From what I remember reading, without SGX it is reliant on an older model of Monero that is missing a critical newer mitigation that prevents people from decloaking upwards of 80% of transactions due to a timing bias in how older transactions are selected for including in the ring signature.

anonporridge 5y ago

Do you have reason to believe MobileCoin scales any better than any other open blockchain protocol? I doubt it. Also, payments with free floating crypto like MobileCoin and bitcoin really isn't practical in most of the western world, due to the requirements of capital gains tax reporting, not to mention the instability of the price. MobileCoin is seriously behind the ball on this, even though it's a problem being actively solved on bitcoin's lightning network, https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459757-biggest-bitcoin-development-you-should-know-is-strike https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459757-biggest-bitcoin-dev...

fauigerzigerk 5y ago
That’s right and I stopped using Signal for that reason. Tax authorities have every right to look into any account that facilitates transactions in taxable assets (even just to confirm that no transactions have taken place) I have nothing in principle against crypto currencies and I am very much in favour of strong privacy for personal communication, but mixing the two is obviously contradictory. It completely defeats the purpose of Signal.
davidgerard 5y ago
also, MobileCoin is a permissioned blockchain with four nodes. It's the embodiment of "it's just a slow database."
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
  - davidgerard 5y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20210408011945/https://www.mobilecoin.foundation/foundation-trusted-nodes https://web.archive.org/web/20210408011945/https://www.mobil... That was as of last April, the page has now been removed.