4 ms·
With the integration of MobileCoin, Signal has a potential web3-style path to sustainability. https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-cryptocurrency-paym
by gojomo 5y ago
With the integration of MobileCoin, Signal has a potential web3-style path to sustainability.
https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-cryptocurrency-payments/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-cryptocurrency...
- ForHackernews 5y agoNo, this is very bad news and could end up with end-to-end encryption being outlawed in the name of preventing money laundering https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-cryptocurrency-payments-encryption-invite-regulator-scrutiny https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-cryptocurrency-paym...
- gojomo 5y agoNo, this is very good news, because it reveals the essential equivalency between privacy-for-speech & privacy-for-commerce.
- Dylan16807 5y agoPersonal privacy for commerce is great, but for money laundering I'd compare that to paying for political influence in the way that it mixes up speech and money in a bad way.
- gojomo 5y agoAnd yet, both kinds of privacy depend on the same freedom-of-technology. If you give up your privacy-of-commerce based on fears of 'money laundering', your privacy-for-speech is probably already dead.
- _heimdall 5y ago100% agree with you here! Privacy is privacy, it doesn't matter what the activity is. Most money today is just digital information, no different than that text message being sent. It seems impossible to allow complete privacy when sending one type of digital information but not another. I could send someone the recovery keys for a bitcoin wallet and launder money via any messaging service. If we need to regulate that then privacy goes out the window, you'd have to know what the content of my message was to know if it was allowed.
- Dylan16807 5y agoI agree with all of that. But I consider that bundling to be a bad thing. And I wish large-scale money laundering was easier to deal with in a privacy-preserving way.
- gojomo 5y agoI consider entropy a troublesome thing. I wish it could be reversed. But, the universe is how it is. Privacy is general-purpose, and the things you can do with it resistant to unbundling.
- shp0ngle 5y agoYes. And because privacy-for-commerce is morally wrong for almost all definitions of morality, then I guess privacy-for-speech is also morally wrong.
- gojomo 5y agoI totally support your right to live in a surveillance police state of your own choosing – far from people who prefer privacy & freedom.