Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#181

Post by fsflover »

saurik wrote: post #78
sneak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iCloud Backup backs up plaintext of all iMessages from the device to Apple, with Apple keys (non-e2e). It also includes all SMS. This is documented plainly on Apple's iCloud security overview page. The list of things that are end-to-end encrypted is listed. iCloud Backup is not in it. It's on by default on all iOS devices. Apple was to fix this by end to end encrypting iCloud device backups, and (I understand) even h…

iCloud Backup being insecure does NOT mean iMessage is "backdoored": if you don't use iCloud Backup--and there is no reason to do so, as Apple (notably unlike anything Android) has a really good local way to do highly-secure backups using iTunes--my (rather firm) understanding is that, even if you turn on the iCloud iMessage sync (which is also optional: I do not have it on, for example), iMessage actually is pretty…

> iCloud Backup being insecure does NOT mean iMessage is "backdoored"

Technically not, but in practice it is for the most users.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#182

Post by romanovcode »

ruph123 wrote: post #93

Why oh why was it not the first priority to move from phone numbers to random user IDs (like Threema) for identification? And instead come up with a crypto currency integration? This whole crypto coin focus, the BS about the server code and the total inability to address criticism or be transparent about development made me lose hope in the project.

Because they want to get rich!

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#183

Post by shafyy »

tw04 wrote: post #172
agd wrote: post #35

I think there are 3 attitudes towards Signal: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised, and that Moxie runs the show, and that it uses phone numbers etc etc... 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Whatsapp exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Signal is liter…

>My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Maybe you should be worried Moxie is ruining it for the rest of us? After spending the better part of the last decade telling us how all you care about is giving end-users easy to consume privacy - adding a payment option that will make you and your buddy rich isn't a great look. Hard to take the rest of what you say seriously when you sell out in this fa…

Exactly. Especially after tooting his "we're a non-profit, we can never sell out" crap all over the place.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#184

Post by anddddd1 »

kentiko wrote: post #28

After convincing all my friends to move from WhatsApp to Signal I am really annoyed about this move. This really damaged the trust I have for Signal. I hope they realize their mistake quickly and drop this idea.

lol. why would this damage your trust in them?

if anything this is a progressive move that fits perfectly with their mission.

Having said that they should have used bitcoin or monero

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#185

Post by Bjartr »

sneak wrote: post #152
aseipp wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. Frankly the idea that I suddenly might have to have another goddamn thing is a bit irritating but I've resigned myself to it. I think the other thing is that it's just a complete…

> Maybe it's the American in me, but I have almost no use for a payment mechanism in my messenger, I have too many. Venmo, Cash, Apple's thing, Google Wallet, whatever -- these all provide everything I need when I need to send money to people. All of those require doxxing yourself to the vendor, submitting to financial (suspicionless) mass surveillance systems, and can be trivially censored without any burden of proo…

I don't think you should be getting downvoted. You clearly hold strongly to your values. There's nothing wrong with that. And you're adding to the discussion by providing your perspective, not being rude or attacking anyone.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#186

Post by growse »

plzbo wrote: post #176
growse wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just opposition to cryptocurrencies per se, the choice of Mobilecoin is also problematic[0]. On top of that you have to trust Intel. > [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348 No you don't - no-one's forcing you to use it. At the end of the day, you have to trust someone, whether it's a tech vendor, a software project lead, or even the person you're conversing with. What's important is that you ge…

> No you don't - no-one's forcing you to use it. I was phrasing that unclear, I meant that you have to trust Intel if you use Mobilecoin. > What's important is that you get to continue to consciously exercise that choice. Why wouldn't you be able to exercise that choice?

> I was phrasing that unclear, I meant that you have to trust Intel if you use Mobilecoin.

Ah, fair. I think you could also argue that you have to trust Intel if you use Signal anyway.

> Why wouldn't you be able to exercise that choice?

I'm not saying you can't (unlike some), but I think it's worth underlining the point that "trusting nobody" is rarely, if ever an option. So in a world where you end up having to trust someone, being able to continuously exercise that is important.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#187

Post by 627467 »

I find this line of criticism more palatable than that of the other front page link[0].

Criticizing the trash(?)coin - and then criticing signal by association - muddies the discussion just like implementing payments in a (seemingly?) private communication tool muddies the mission of signal.

Personally I think of transfer of value as important as transfer of speech/information so, it makes sense for signal (or other messengers) to want to include it. But associating themselves with a new project that has had little scrutiny seems to be a mistake because: - people question if this new product won't negatively degrade the privacy assurances that signal has had so far - people will associate plenty of previous cryptoscams to this new effort

[0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#188

Post by fullstop »

fsflover wrote: post #169
agd wrote: post #35

I think there are 3 attitudes towards Signal: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised, and that Moxie runs the show, and that it uses phone numbers etc etc... 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Whatsapp exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Signal is liter…

> Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised You can call me a purist if you like, but every single project starts failing when it becomes too big, unless it's decentralized. You simply cannot afford to serve millions of users without a profit. Telegram now has to include ads.

They're not doing that just yet: https://t.me/durov/155

They have found investors and have enough cash on hand for quite a while.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#189

Post by avtar »

agd wrote: post #35

I think there are 3 attitudes towards Signal: 1. Anger from purists who care about the fact it's not decentralised, and that Moxie runs the show, and that it uses phone numbers etc etc... 2. Indifference from those who have never heard of it 3. Joy from those who are extremely happy a decent, private, alternative to Facebook/Whatsapp exists My worry is that group 1) try and ruin it for the rest of us. Signal is liter…

> But Signal needs to keep core feature parity to remain competitive with WhatsApp, Telegram etc. And that includes a payment mechanism.

It's still not possible to italicize text using any of their clients. The desktop app feels rough compared to Telegram's -- try reducing the size of the messages preview column. Which group of users was actively requesting MobileCoin support?

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#190

Post by sudosysgen »

simion314 wrote: post #86
agd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the main competitors to Firefox (Chrome, Edge, Safari) offer a payment mechanism? So this wouldn't be required for core feature parity. However the two main competitors to Signal (Telegram and Whatsapp imo) do have a payment mechanism.

I had no idea WhatsApp and Telegram have cryptocurrency support, I only use WhatsApp because I need it for soem school parents group though... but even if Chrome would add Gopogle Coin support I still will not like if Firefox forces it and not make it an optional plugin (people still complain that Firefox added DRM support for media so this is not theoretical)

Neither Telegram nor Whatsapp have crypto support. Both of them have very limited payments support, that doesn't use crypto at all.
Post reply on HN