qqii

9 ms·

61.
by qqii 5y ago
Signal is still not a good way for phishing/ransom anyways. Users would either have to already have the attacker in their contacts list or enable sealed sender. Enabling and funding a cryptocurrency wallet is going to be difficult. Eve
62.
by qqii 5y ago
> someone comes up with a playbook convincing nontechnical users they need to send mobile coin to them in order to keep using signal. This sounds pretty unlikely, as long as signal does not integrate a payment processor (and they've
63.
by qqii 5y ago
I think signal is and have been very clear that they won't remain "just a chat app". I don't have anything against cryptocurrency but I'm taking this as an opportunity to evaluate my alternatives.
64.
by qqii 5y ago
Companies is one thing, individuals are another. Rough estimating using the people I know barely anyone has or uses PayPal.
65.
by qqii 5y ago
And to take it even further, doesn't this bend the AGPLv3 licence to an extent?
66.
by qqii 5y ago
To play Signal's advocate, MobileCoin is one of the only cryptocurrencies that meets their requirements. The only other cryptocurrency that I know of that might come close is Grin. The details of the distribution are lacking but as a b
67.
by qqii 5y ago
Yes, and the official and community name for that is a resource pack or addon.
68.
by qqii 5y ago
Calling this modding is technically true but misleading, modding commonly refers to Java mods and not resource packs.
69.
by qqii 5y ago
Opinion amplifiers.
70.
by qqii 5y ago
As the article describes you cannot spend any transaction until a fixed number of block confirmations. This is a non issue if you already have coins in your wallet but it's not a very pleasant first time experience.
71.
by qqii 6y ago
I get the point but it's misleading to attribute the entire year to integrating payments. The server code base has historically had periods of non public updates and doing a quick grep of the commit log payments first appears in Octobe
72.
by qqii 6y ago
They're not doing payment proceeding, it's just a wallet.
73.
by qqii 6y ago
Even if you could tell a big winner in advance, the time volatility in return is still a risk factor.
74.
by qqii 6y ago
This argument only seems to hold if everyone was a passive investor. Also not all investors can take the same amount of risk, which naturally results in passive investors.
75.
by qqii 6y ago
Exactly, those that are interested in the performance of a specific company will invest and effectively have the same proportion of power as if the passive investors didn't exist.
76.
by qqii 6y ago
I had a similar thought when reading the article. As an example individual or smaller investors simply cannot create lower risk options like an index fund by themselves. We don't have the ability to index specific markets and apply a p
77.
by qqii 6y ago
I hate that theory for a number of reasons. It avoids so much evidence of Signals past controversial changes, Moxie's past interviews about MobileCoin and his current tweets or the amount of work done to create MobileCoin. Even a quick
78.
by qqii 6y ago
Signal's developers are not MobileCoin's developers though. All Signal's developers have done is integrate the work of MobileCoin into their backend (fog) and client (fog wallet).
79.
by qqii 6y ago
You have to begin wjth the premise that Moxie would like to add payment integration to Signal, in which cake making another app doesn't fulfill the goal. You could also argue against the premise that a secure chat app needs payment int
80.
by qqii 6y ago
Not to excuse signal but has the response really been justified for a beta feature being tested in a single country? The signal press release and activity on the forums makes it clear that they're asking for feedback. Their intentions
81.
by qqii 6y ago
I think the article does a decent job at explaining why signal didn't go with existing privacy cryptocurrencies. The two points are: * Signal wants to make money (and they cite Tor as an example of the problems of not making money) * M
82.
by qqii 6y ago
I'm glad someone has written this article as the converse on HN has been overly negative. This is an article I would have probably written so I'd like to add: > Third, private transaction retrieval requires downloading blocks t
83.
by qqii 6y ago
It's been a while since I checked it out but key management on encrypted group chats.
84.
by qqii 6y ago
How so? When I consider how to build it on top of an existing smart contact platform you'd have to have a whole extra, nonstandard layer for key rotation and you'd miss out on privacy guarentees. If we assume their goal of privacy
85.
by qqii 6y ago
Okay, so do the current node operators publish their peering requirements? Given your description it sounds like governance is whatever the MobileCoin foundation and its partners dictates. Unlike the consensus in this thread I think there&#
86.
by qqii 6y ago
It should be obvious by now that signal is aiming for a different balance of user friendliness and privacy. At this point it seems unlikely that they'd change their minds on phone numbers.
87.
by qqii 6y ago
You'd be suprised, WeChat for example is almost a platform of its own.
88.
by qqii 6y ago
Do you have a link to where they're discouraging people to use it to store wealth?
89.
by qqii 6y ago
On most clients spending and receiving is instant. What takes a maximum of 2 minutes on monero is waiting for your received balance to become available.
90.
by qqii 6y ago
I'm actually going to go out on a limb and defend their choice of MobileCoin. Signal has always been a decent privacy/convenience tradeoff and MobileCoin is no different. Features like phone numbers and contact uploading were alwa

More ›