121–130 of 149 posts
Signal needs to release all the infra automation code behind their backend. How they setup and manage it all should not be secret. It also makes it easy to rebuild if for some reason they are compromised. They've ghosted multiple people about this question. There's no reason a 501(c)(3) shouldn't release it.
Is Signal still a trusted company in the industry? They are based in the USA.
MacOS, iOS, Windows, Linux, Android are all made in the US and are also virtually universally used. This idea that people avoid American products is super niche.
Is Signal still a trusted company in the industry? They are based in the USA.
you can't wave your hands, say "zero knowledge", and be private. this is too little information to be useful
usually, the implication of ZKP is that you buy coupons and claim them without attribution. in this coupon scenario the ZKP can just be a blind signature scheme. however signal has an obscene fondness for TEEs (secure enclaves) so they may actually be doing something stupid here which will require trust beyond the ZKP.
https://confer.to/blog/2026/09/confidential-workers-for-priv...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal is there for power and control, not for its users, otherwise they would welcome the usage of third party clients, and generally, encourage decentralisation measures like self hosting, federation and account portability. Yep, they have nice engineering blog posts, they are also US-incorporated, extensively centralised in AWS and subject to the cloud act, which together negates, or largely diminishes claims abou…
Does the perfect messaging tool exist (100% e2ee encrypted and decentralized and open)?
(Note that I don't care about cryptocurrencies except for the cryptography behind it)
There are fully anonymous cryptocurrencies using ZKP where it's not possible to tell if a transaction sent is a transfer of the cryptocurrency itself or a message. It's decentralized and it's also impossible to tell who the transaction is made for (anyone with a copy of the chain can potentially be the recipient of either the money transfer or the encrypted message).
If people were really serious about privacy and secure messaging they'd look into this instead of constantly attacking the concept.
But then of course there are entire armies of shills who have a vested interest in pushing a narrative explaining that services, at best, collecting metadata and, at worst, being backdoored are offering "secure messaging".
I'm only using Telegram and I don't believe for a second it's secure and private (it's got, supposedly, "one on one" E2EE but not for groups). But at least they're not posturing as the most secure and private messenger on earth.
Lots of discussion at that link, but what's the bottom line? Can you register without a phone number yet?
Per the commits, this will require a purchase with Google Play Billing to mitigate spam while keeping the SMS verification option.
You cannot keep all 3 of "no gatekeeping" - "anyone can message anyone" - "low spam".
Does the protocol preserve its privacy benefit when payment, recovery, and anti-abuse metadata are considered together?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is 501c3, should they also be required to release everything?
"open" is literally in the name, so yes
Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't mean it is.
"Open" is a name that George Soros uses for a lot of the things he puts his billions into e.g. the Open Democracy blog.
I'll leave you to decide whether Soros' enterprises are really open.