32 ms·

Telegram: No-SIM Signup, Auto-Delete All Chats, Topics 2.0 and more

176 points by guilamu 4y ago

guilamu 4y ago
"Today starts a new era of privacy. You can have a Telegram account without a SIM card and log in using blockchain-powered anonymous numbers available on the Fragment platform." What does the hn crood think about it?
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
- luoc 4y ago
  My bet: the people behind Telegram got massive stakes in this cyber coin and now (ab)use their power to attract some of their users into this ecosystem. I guess the intersection of users with "advanced privacy needs" and those open to any sort of crypto scheme is significant.
- culi 4y ago
  "Hey here's this really useful thing you've wanted for a long time. We're tying it to our FTX-replacement to kickstart us in the race for the next leader in that space"
- orwin 4y ago
  If you can pay with Monero, it adds a new real use case for the public Blockchain technology.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Why not just allow signups without any number at all? That'd be a lot simpler than creating a fake number.
- return_to_monke 4y ago
  because this seems like "pay to get a fake number so you can sign up". they, might also, make a cut from it.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    I understand, it will also put up a barrier to spammers registering hundreds of accounts. What I don't understand though is, why they don't just ask for money directly instead of using the fake number as a roundabout way.
- dtech 4y ago
  spam prevention, existing code/infrastructure not able to handle it.
  - lopis 4y ago
    I don't understand why people don't understand this. Telegram is already full of spam. If it was possible to sign-up with just username and password, Telegram would die overnight.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    I understand putting a physical cost on an account in terms of spam prevention. This is actually a really good idea because spam thrives mainly due to it costing so little. However why the fake number? Why not ask for money directly? The codebase is a good point, hopefully this will be fixed in the future.
    - maxgashkov 4y ago
      > why the fake number Backwards compatibility probably? I think having a phone number present is built so deep in the architecture that it’s easier to add a fake number than change it overnight and wait for universal adoption of new client versions.
0xy 4y ago
So it looks like you have to pay $16 minimum for one of these 'anonymous numbers'. How can it be anonymous if you have to purchase the TON required to bid on them, and therefore have done KYC at an exchange or used your credit card? This seems like a pretty big leap from true username sign-in, and I really like Telegram. 'Anonymous login' seems extremely misleading in this case.
- coldblues 4y ago
  I can buy a one-time phone number for 0.50$ or even cheaper to register a Telegram account. It's absurd to pay 16$.
- kypro 4y ago
  I don't know much about crypto so maybe I'm wrong here, but can't you purchase an anonymous coin like XMR and exchange it for TON in a way that can't be traced? Are you saying it's impossible to do anonymously, or just that it's not anonymous by default?
  - pizza234 4y ago
    That's my understanding as well; Coinbase does sell Toncoin, for example. 1 TON currently sells for 1.83$, by the way.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - katsura 4y ago
      > Toncoin is not supported by Coinbase. Source: https://www.coinbase.com/price/toncoin https://www.coinbase.com/price/toncoin
      - pizza234 4y ago
        Right! Google in this case is, interestingly, wrong (or precisely, very misleading) in their QA: Does Coinbase have TON? Buy TON Token with Coinbase Wallet TON Token is only available through Coinbase Wallet. Assets on Coinbase Wallet are not held by Coinbase. For reference, the list of exchanges is here: https://ton.app/exchanges https://ton.app/exchanges.
uxx 4y ago
didn't they comply with Indian police request and handed over complete user data and ip logs to them?
- RektBoy 4y ago
  yes
- k33l0r 4y ago
  And they're very possibly sharing chat metadata with Russian intelligence services https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/russia-is-spying-on-telegram-chats https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/russia-is-spying-on-telegr...
  - execveat 4y ago
    The article is incredibly patronizing, while being also incredibly stupid. If the orcs were half as smart as would be needed to extract metadata from (poorly) encrypted traffic, they would just sidestep that altogether by adding a second device to the Ihor's Telegram account. That would have given them plaintext. This low-tech "attack" would also work even better with WhatsApp and Signal (better because in Telegram secret chats don't get shared between multiple devices while in WhatsApp and Signal they obviously are - cause every chat is encrypted).
- mylidlpony 4y ago
  There's a whole bunch of russians moderators of protest channels who get raided because they think telegram is secure, while in reality it's very easy to leak your phone, which can be used to find where you are. And now they want to monetize anonymity by tying it to crypto that most people will buy with their own cards and can be traced to legal id. Think of it what you will, but personally I will not be using neither recommending anyone to use telegram.
- yewenjie 4y ago
  TBF it was a court order, not just a police request. Not defending Telegram though.
- 4y ago
ale42 4y ago
Signal already allows you to sign-up without a SIM card: you can use a landline number and voice call verification... WhatsApp Business allows landline numbers too, by the way.
- j4nek 4y ago
  Threema doesn't even needs a telephone number.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    Just needs a payment method Which I can see the point of for a good app, which it is. But in terms of "anonymity for the masses" it's a hard sell when you could use Element with roughly the same features if less stability.
- oefrha 4y ago
  I can assure you when people talk about signing up without a SIM what they have in mind isn’t landline.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    I would have been fine with a landline, but for some reason did not realize it was possible with Signal. Maybe call verification got implemented after I signed up... And for the purposes of anonymity I am definitely more fine with a landline than any method that requires me to make a payment
    - ale42 4y ago
      > but for some reason did not realize it was possible with Signal. I don't think it's something they make very obvious. It also used to be broken for non-US numbers for more than one year at some point...
- rvz 4y ago
  So you still need a phone number to sign up. Instant no thanks and no deal.
Anunayj 4y ago
I am a little confused as to why a blockchain was necessary here? Since Telegram is a centralized platform, couldn't they just roll their own "usernames" which they already do.
- transcriptase 4y ago
  Honestly. Telegram is a superb chat client, but there’s no reason for this blockchain nonsense. Let users choose a username and password like services have been doing for decades.
  - SnowHill9902 4y ago
    How is its interface so sleek? It’s better than Apple’s own apps.
    - transcriptase 4y ago
      Sleek, fast, intuitive, and seamless across devices. From a software standpoint it’s incredible, compared to something like Discord which takes longer to launch than it takes my PC to power on and get to the desktop.
      - karpour 4y ago
        Discord is a bloated UI nightmare. There are so many awkward choices. Most annoying is that the server list is icons only. There are many servers with similar icons. Just allow me to have actual text there.
        addandsubtract 4y ago
        Discord straight up doesn't work on the web for me anymore. The enter key doesn't trigger anything, so I can't search or write anything. It's the most obnoxious bug I've ever witnessed.
        4y ago
dodgerdan 4y ago
I’m absolutely astonished that anyone trusts Telegram for their communication. Both on a technological, ownership, operational and geopolitical basis. Their “agreement” with the Russians government is beyond sketchy, they’re 100% authoritarian located/exposed and they’ve a track record of bad encryption, what am I missing?
- dzonga 4y ago
  i'm in the west - what's russia gonna do to me ? whereas in the west the us / uk gvt can come pounce on me anytime if i use western apps.
  - patates 4y ago
    - Share your information with anyone, or even sell it, without any consequences - Accumulate data and try to use it for mass manipulation These are from the top of my head.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      So, same as every other chat platform, be it facebook or google, or discord, or microsoft,...?
      - Nimitz14 4y ago
        They do not sell your data.
        fsflover 4y ago
        But they do use it to manipulate you.
        jesterson 4y ago
        You can't be serious stating that, can you? What makes you stating that so undoubtedly?
      - 4y ago
nottorp 4y ago
Blockchain? There goes any remaining trust I had in Telegram.
- ikt 4y ago
  ... they've been doing blockchain stuff since 2017: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_Open_Network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_Open_Network
  - nottorp 4y ago
    I was never a fan. I only keep it installed to talk with one rabid fan :)
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
There are often conflicting requirements of privacy, security, and something else...resistance to inauthentic actors, bots, spam? Is Telegram supposed to be private? I always thought they were more security than privacy focused. Now how do you allow private and secure messaging without being overrun by every bad actor on the planet? They'd flock to the platform if there were no hurdle to account creation or ensuring authenticity. Handle payment like Mullvad?
- lxgr 4y ago
  Their "security" focus was always just branding. Telegram is about as centralized as it gets, architecturally, with the service provider trusted ultimately.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    What does centralization have to do with security? My bank is centralized.
    - lxgr 4y ago
      Centralization in the sense of "who can read the messages" (or its big brother "who intransparently controls all encryption keys"). Banks have a different threat model, and while I can be reimbursed for stolen funds, it‘s not exactly possible to "un-leak" personal messages.
account-5 4y ago
I would consider requring a Blockchain account worse than requiring a mobile number.
Markoff 4y ago
One step forward, two steps back. No need SIM, but you need even worse Blockchain account. Telegram is not worth recommending to anyone until they require SIM (or some Blockchain nonsense) and all chats/calls/content is not E2EE by default, even Whatsapp is safer option, if you don't want some proper alternative like Matrix (Element, FlufflyChat), Briar, Session etc.
xkcd1963 4y ago
All chats should be auto-encrypted. That would be a useful feature.
- grishka 4y ago
  This can't be done without compromising the user experience.
egberts1 4y ago
Great features. Ummm, but are our raw messages being stored at their servers, in a form of encrypted data-at-rest (such that no one can get to the message on the hard drive, if stolen, powered down, or an errant process accessing them ... without a key), ... AND are the keys being kept only on the clients' side (such that keys are generated only by client-side and its keys are never sent to Telegram servers)? I didn't think so.
- nucleardog 4y ago
  > ... AND are the keys being kept only on the clients' side Nope, and that's why I use it! I like the fact that I can just open it on any device and have my chat history available. I like the fact that damaging my phone doesn't lose me access to my contacts or chat history. I'm more worried about usability and UX than I am whether Ivan Kgbinov is reading my insipid chats.
  - terpimost 4y ago
    Ivan Kgbinov is a . I humbly suggest Vladimir Kgbinov
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
>Today starts a new era of privacy. I literally spat out my coffee. What nerve. Telegram disguises itself as an encrypted chat app, when it is actually just a regular centralized plaintext messenger that has an encryption feature that nobody uses. Don't walk. Run. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/after-court-order-telegram-discloses-phone-numbers-ip-addresses-of-users-accused-of-sharing-infringing-material-215311 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/after-court-order-telegr...
Technetium 4y ago
You can sign up without a SIM now, BUT it doesn't work outside the US! When there are country restrictions on username verification, it renders this 'feature' worthless.
nirvgorilla 4y ago
Uhh, how about let me sign up with a throwaway email like a NORMAL piece of software? Screw you, telegram. I'll stick with open-source Jitsi Meet hosted on my own Debian Virtualbox machine using DDNS and Let's Encrypt so I can give people a link to instantly be in text/E2EE voice chat with me. No software. No app. No login. No password. Just over the browser WebRTC.
- hacknewslogin 4y ago
  That sounds like an interesting setup. Is there a guide for this?
  - nirvgorilla 4y ago
    [dead]
- sdiacom 4y ago
  I may be irony-poisoned beyond repair, but I genuinely can't tell if this comment is intentionally a parody of a Hacker News comment.
  - nirvgorilla 4y ago
    Oh, you're poisoned. There's something shady about all these new "chat clients" that require so much personal crap. I tend to prefer software that allows you to host your own server - Jitsi and Jitsi Meet allow that. Jitsi has ZRTP encryption and Jitsi Meet uses WebRTC for end-to-end encryption, but I like that even if you don't want to host it yourself, you can still use it without software/logins here on their official site: https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/ Just type in any name you want, give the link to a friend and bam.
    - Aachen 4y ago
      I very much doubt you could use this with an average set of friends and family no matter how hard you try. You're going to lose touch with at least half if you insist that Jitsi is the only replacement you have to offer people for a chat application and you don't reach out to them using something they can read like email or snail mail or dropping by if you live close enough. (That's why I think GP took your post for potential irony.) Kudos to you if it works for you, but it's not a serious option. I don't have a Facebook messenger and believe me that's bad enough without also ditching Signal because eww phone number, Threema because eww nonanonymous payments, Telegram because eww no encryption, Element because it's unstable and I don't think my mom (let alone my grandma) would be able to use that UI effectively, Briar which can fundamentally not support voice calls, Jaimi which is about as stable as Windows 95 at launch when I tried it (and this wasn't an early beta, it was called Ring before iirc, it's gone through years of development), Wire which runs on USA infrastructure and isn't focusing on consumers anymore, et cetera and so on and so forth. I've actually got most of these apps and it's already hard to find common grounds when literally everyone else has Facebook's WhatsApp and they're wondering why I'm being difficult if they're not techies or privacy nuts themselves.
lxgr 4y ago
Something I missed at the first read: The "phone numbers" they sell are in the fictional +888 country calling code. This is beyond bizarre: They are selling numeric-only identifiers (for no technical reason), looking like and clasing with a namespace they don't own, for money that they made up.
tail_exchange 4y ago
Telegram has been my favorite messenger since I started using it. Fast, nice interface, great features, and wide adoption.

176 points by guilamu 4y ago

"Today starts a new era of privacy. You can have a Telegram account without a SIM card and log in using blockchain-powered anonymous numbers available on the Fragment platform." What does the hn crood think about it?

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
luoc 4y ago
My bet: the people behind Telegram got massive stakes in this cyber coin and now (ab)use their power to attract some of their users into this ecosystem. I guess the intersection of users with "advanced privacy needs" and those open to any sort of crypto scheme is significant.
culi 4y ago
"Hey here's this really useful thing you've wanted for a long time. We're tying it to our FTX-replacement to kickstart us in the race for the next leader in that space"
orwin 4y ago
If you can pay with Monero, it adds a new real use case for the public Blockchain technology.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Why not just allow signups without any number at all? That'd be a lot simpler than creating a fake number.

return_to_monke 4y ago
because this seems like "pay to get a fake number so you can sign up". they, might also, make a cut from it.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  I understand, it will also put up a barrier to spammers registering hundreds of accounts. What I don't understand though is, why they don't just ask for money directly instead of using the fake number as a roundabout way.
dtech 4y ago
spam prevention, existing code/infrastructure not able to handle it.
- lopis 4y ago
  I don't understand why people don't understand this. Telegram is already full of spam. If it was possible to sign-up with just username and password, Telegram would die overnight.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  I understand putting a physical cost on an account in terms of spam prevention. This is actually a really good idea because spam thrives mainly due to it costing so little. However why the fake number? Why not ask for money directly? The codebase is a good point, hopefully this will be fixed in the future.
  - maxgashkov 4y ago
    > why the fake number Backwards compatibility probably? I think having a phone number present is built so deep in the architecture that it’s easier to add a fake number than change it overnight and wait for universal adoption of new client versions.

0xy 4y ago

So it looks like you have to pay $16 minimum for one of these 'anonymous numbers'. How can it be anonymous if you have to purchase the TON required to bid on them, and therefore have done KYC at an exchange or used your credit card? This seems like a pretty big leap from true username sign-in, and I really like Telegram. 'Anonymous login' seems extremely misleading in this case.

coldblues 4y ago
I can buy a one-time phone number for 0.50$ or even cheaper to register a Telegram account. It's absurd to pay 16$.
kypro 4y ago
I don't know much about crypto so maybe I'm wrong here, but can't you purchase an anonymous coin like XMR and exchange it for TON in a way that can't be traced? Are you saying it's impossible to do anonymously, or just that it's not anonymous by default?
- pizza234 4y ago
  That's my understanding as well; Coinbase does sell Toncoin, for example. 1 TON currently sells for 1.83$, by the way.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - katsura 4y ago
    > Toncoin is not supported by Coinbase. Source: https://www.coinbase.com/price/toncoin https://www.coinbase.com/price/toncoin
    - pizza234 4y ago
      Right! Google in this case is, interestingly, wrong (or precisely, very misleading) in their QA: Does Coinbase have TON? Buy TON Token with Coinbase Wallet TON Token is only available through Coinbase Wallet. Assets on Coinbase Wallet are not held by Coinbase. For reference, the list of exchanges is here: https://ton.app/exchanges https://ton.app/exchanges.

uxx 4y ago

didn't they comply with Indian police request and handed over complete user data and ip logs to them?

RektBoy 4y ago
yes
k33l0r 4y ago
And they're very possibly sharing chat metadata with Russian intelligence services https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/russia-is-spying-on-telegram-chats https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/russia-is-spying-on-telegr...
- execveat 4y ago
  The article is incredibly patronizing, while being also incredibly stupid. If the orcs were half as smart as would be needed to extract metadata from (poorly) encrypted traffic, they would just sidestep that altogether by adding a second device to the Ihor's Telegram account. That would have given them plaintext. This low-tech "attack" would also work even better with WhatsApp and Signal (better because in Telegram secret chats don't get shared between multiple devices while in WhatsApp and Signal they obviously are - cause every chat is encrypted).
mylidlpony 4y ago
There's a whole bunch of russians moderators of protest channels who get raided because they think telegram is secure, while in reality it's very easy to leak your phone, which can be used to find where you are. And now they want to monetize anonymity by tying it to crypto that most people will buy with their own cards and can be traced to legal id. Think of it what you will, but personally I will not be using neither recommending anyone to use telegram.
yewenjie 4y ago
TBF it was a court order, not just a police request. Not defending Telegram though.
4y ago

ale42 4y ago

Signal already allows you to sign-up without a SIM card: you can use a landline number and voice call verification... WhatsApp Business allows landline numbers too, by the way.

j4nek 4y ago
Threema doesn't even needs a telephone number.
- Aachen 4y ago
  Just needs a payment method Which I can see the point of for a good app, which it is. But in terms of "anonymity for the masses" it's a hard sell when you could use Element with roughly the same features if less stability.
oefrha 4y ago
I can assure you when people talk about signing up without a SIM what they have in mind isn’t landline.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  I would have been fine with a landline, but for some reason did not realize it was possible with Signal. Maybe call verification got implemented after I signed up... And for the purposes of anonymity I am definitely more fine with a landline than any method that requires me to make a payment
  - ale42 4y ago
    > but for some reason did not realize it was possible with Signal. I don't think it's something they make very obvious. It also used to be broken for non-US numbers for more than one year at some point...
rvz 4y ago
So you still need a phone number to sign up. Instant no thanks and no deal.

Anunayj 4y ago

I am a little confused as to why a blockchain was necessary here? Since Telegram is a centralized platform, couldn't they just roll their own "usernames" which they already do.

transcriptase 4y ago
Honestly. Telegram is a superb chat client, but there’s no reason for this blockchain nonsense. Let users choose a username and password like services have been doing for decades.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  How is its interface so sleek? It’s better than Apple’s own apps.
  - transcriptase 4y ago
    Sleek, fast, intuitive, and seamless across devices. From a software standpoint it’s incredible, compared to something like Discord which takes longer to launch than it takes my PC to power on and get to the desktop.
    - karpour 4y ago
      Discord is a bloated UI nightmare. There are so many awkward choices. Most annoying is that the server list is icons only. There are many servers with similar icons. Just allow me to have actual text there.
      - addandsubtract 4y ago
        Discord straight up doesn't work on the web for me anymore. The enter key doesn't trigger anything, so I can't search or write anything. It's the most obnoxious bug I've ever witnessed.
        4y ago

dodgerdan 4y ago

I’m absolutely astonished that anyone trusts Telegram for their communication. Both on a technological, ownership, operational and geopolitical basis. Their “agreement” with the Russians government is beyond sketchy, they’re 100% authoritarian located/exposed and they’ve a track record of bad encryption, what am I missing?

dzonga 4y ago
i'm in the west - what's russia gonna do to me ? whereas in the west the us / uk gvt can come pounce on me anytime if i use western apps.
- patates 4y ago
  - Share your information with anyone, or even sell it, without any consequences - Accumulate data and try to use it for mass manipulation These are from the top of my head.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    So, same as every other chat platform, be it facebook or google, or discord, or microsoft,...?
    - Nimitz14 4y ago
      They do not sell your data.
      - fsflover 4y ago
        But they do use it to manipulate you.
      - jesterson 4y ago
        You can't be serious stating that, can you? What makes you stating that so undoubtedly?
    - 4y ago

nottorp 4y ago

Blockchain? There goes any remaining trust I had in Telegram.

ikt 4y ago
... they've been doing blockchain stuff since 2017: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_Open_Network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_Open_Network
- nottorp 4y ago
  I was never a fan. I only keep it installed to talk with one rabid fan :)

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

There are often conflicting requirements of privacy, security, and something else...resistance to inauthentic actors, bots, spam? Is Telegram supposed to be private? I always thought they were more security than privacy focused. Now how do you allow private and secure messaging without being overrun by every bad actor on the planet? They'd flock to the platform if there were no hurdle to account creation or ensuring authenticity. Handle payment like Mullvad?

lxgr 4y ago
Their "security" focus was always just branding. Telegram is about as centralized as it gets, architecturally, with the service provider trusted ultimately.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  What does centralization have to do with security? My bank is centralized.
  - lxgr 4y ago
    Centralization in the sense of "who can read the messages" (or its big brother "who intransparently controls all encryption keys"). Banks have a different threat model, and while I can be reimbursed for stolen funds, it‘s not exactly possible to "un-leak" personal messages.

account-5 4y ago

I would consider requring a Blockchain account worse than requiring a mobile number.

Markoff 4y ago

One step forward, two steps back. No need SIM, but you need even worse Blockchain account. Telegram is not worth recommending to anyone until they require SIM (or some Blockchain nonsense) and all chats/calls/content is not E2EE by default, even Whatsapp is safer option, if you don't want some proper alternative like Matrix (Element, FlufflyChat), Briar, Session etc.

xkcd1963 4y ago

All chats should be auto-encrypted. That would be a useful feature.

grishka 4y ago
This can't be done without compromising the user experience.

egberts1 4y ago

Great features. Ummm, but are our raw messages being stored at their servers, in a form of encrypted data-at-rest (such that no one can get to the message on the hard drive, if stolen, powered down, or an errant process accessing them ... without a key), ... AND are the keys being kept only on the clients' side (such that keys are generated only by client-side and its keys are never sent to Telegram servers)? I didn't think so.

nucleardog 4y ago
> ... AND are the keys being kept only on the clients' side Nope, and that's why I use it! I like the fact that I can just open it on any device and have my chat history available. I like the fact that damaging my phone doesn't lose me access to my contacts or chat history. I'm more worried about usability and UX than I am whether Ivan Kgbinov is reading my insipid chats.
- terpimost 4y ago
  Ivan Kgbinov is a . I humbly suggest Vladimir Kgbinov

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

>Today starts a new era of privacy. I literally spat out my coffee. What nerve. Telegram disguises itself as an encrypted chat app, when it is actually just a regular centralized plaintext messenger that has an encryption feature that nobody uses. Don't walk. Run. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/after-court-order-telegram-discloses-phone-numbers-ip-addresses-of-users-accused-of-sharing-infringing-material-215311 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/after-court-order-telegr...

Technetium 4y ago

You can sign up without a SIM now, BUT it doesn't work outside the US! When there are country restrictions on username verification, it renders this 'feature' worthless.

nirvgorilla 4y ago

Uhh, how about let me sign up with a throwaway email like a NORMAL piece of software? Screw you, telegram. I'll stick with open-source Jitsi Meet hosted on my own Debian Virtualbox machine using DDNS and Let's Encrypt so I can give people a link to instantly be in text/E2EE voice chat with me. No software. No app. No login. No password. Just over the browser WebRTC.

hacknewslogin 4y ago
That sounds like an interesting setup. Is there a guide for this?
- nirvgorilla 4y ago
  [dead]
sdiacom 4y ago
I may be irony-poisoned beyond repair, but I genuinely can't tell if this comment is intentionally a parody of a Hacker News comment.
- nirvgorilla 4y ago
  Oh, you're poisoned. There's something shady about all these new "chat clients" that require so much personal crap. I tend to prefer software that allows you to host your own server - Jitsi and Jitsi Meet allow that. Jitsi has ZRTP encryption and Jitsi Meet uses WebRTC for end-to-end encryption, but I like that even if you don't want to host it yourself, you can still use it without software/logins here on their official site: https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/ Just type in any name you want, give the link to a friend and bam.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    I very much doubt you could use this with an average set of friends and family no matter how hard you try. You're going to lose touch with at least half if you insist that Jitsi is the only replacement you have to offer people for a chat application and you don't reach out to them using something they can read like email or snail mail or dropping by if you live close enough. (That's why I think GP took your post for potential irony.) Kudos to you if it works for you, but it's not a serious option. I don't have a Facebook messenger and believe me that's bad enough without also ditching Signal because eww phone number, Threema because eww nonanonymous payments, Telegram because eww no encryption, Element because it's unstable and I don't think my mom (let alone my grandma) would be able to use that UI effectively, Briar which can fundamentally not support voice calls, Jaimi which is about as stable as Windows 95 at launch when I tried it (and this wasn't an early beta, it was called Ring before iirc, it's gone through years of development), Wire which runs on USA infrastructure and isn't focusing on consumers anymore, et cetera and so on and so forth. I've actually got most of these apps and it's already hard to find common grounds when literally everyone else has Facebook's WhatsApp and they're wondering why I'm being difficult if they're not techies or privacy nuts themselves.

lxgr 4y ago

Something I missed at the first read: The "phone numbers" they sell are in the fictional +888 country calling code. This is beyond bizarre: They are selling numeric-only identifiers (for no technical reason), looking like and clasing with a namespace they don't own, for money that they made up.

tail_exchange 4y ago

Telegram has been my favorite messenger since I started using it. Fast, nice interface, great features, and wide adoption.