Live data from Hacker News

Why Not Signal?

github.com

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Why Not Signal?

#21

>Signal also notably isn't self-hostable: there's no way to run your own signal server, and control your data. Marlinspike ruthlessly shuts down anyone attempting to build alternate clients or servers that could communicate with the main one. That is perfectly wrong. As a maintainer of https://axolotl.chat , a third-party signal client initially built for Ubuntu Touch but which runs on almost everything now, I can te…

This should be promoted more! I had no idea this existed and I've been keenly following Signal for years. Will check it out, thanks for sharing.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#22

>In April 2021, signal outraged the open-source community by going a whole year without publishing their server code updates. So? We have no way to be sure what is actually running on the server. In an end to end encrypted system, if the server can degrade security then you are doing it wrong.

Any server can at least log both data and metadata. Any server could at least monitor and alert.

I wonder if there is a theoretical way to use ecryption to somehow prove that a message was only handled the way it was claimed? Seems impossible on the face of it but I've only given it one minutes thought yet.

Could you for instance have a hypervizor that does not know anything about the comms, and the client supplies something encrypted that causes a server to be created on the spot, do the comms work, and go away, and all the hypervizor knows is that it ran a process for a while? And the encrypted thing the client submits is not just an envelope and message but also essentially it's own decryption and verification code, such that the client can verify that the server is running the code it submitted, which of course included no copying.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#23
Agreed with article, but for ordinary users I would have much easier to understand reasons why I ditched Signal some time ago after years of use:

1. It's unreliable, if you switch between mobile network and WiFi connection it takes way long time for Signal to register to change to send/receive the messages, while Whatsapp has no such problem and send message almost instantly.

2. Devs ignore users, I waited years for file picker being able to provide such BASIC feature as selecting multiple pictures at once, for years you have to select pictures one by one, Signal devs remind of Firefox devs, zero interest in fixing basic things.

3. It's unreliable poorly operated service, I remember when Signal went down and it took almost whole night in US until someone in US woke up and fixed it, I was for hours without working service.

4. The last drop was when they started ti push on users some PIN code nobody asked for taking 1/3 of the screen until you created it, for some users full screen nag. Then I decided to move me and my wife and both of my parents from Signal, so good luck with such crappy service (I know they soon backpedalled from this stupid decision but it was already way too late for us and they lost at least 4 users).

5. It's user hostile - there is no way knowing long pressing Send button allows you to force send message as SMS to Signal user, there was no introduction at first launch explaining this to user, each and every user have to go to Google and search how to do this. I assume also there is no automatic SMS fallback for Signal messages which are not sent/delivered within specific time frame.

6. There is no 3rd party app allowed, so you are stuck with one option whether you like it or not despite their "open source" claims.

All these happened before it became hype and fashionable to be on Signal, so maybe it's different now, but these are basic things ordinary users care about who don't even really care all that much about privacy and other stuff.

If you want to use alternative service you better use Element (Matrix), it doesn't require phone number, it doesn't rely on one American controlled server.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#24
post #23

Agreed with article, but for ordinary users I would have much easier to understand reasons why I ditched Signal some time ago after years of use: 1. It's unreliable, if you switch between mobile network and WiFi connection it takes way long time for Signal to register to change to send/receive the messages, while Whatsapp has no such problem and send message almost instantly. 2. Devs ignore users, I waited years for…

theres another thing you didnt mention

The average users mainly cares if their friends are on it. As it stands most people use either iMessage, WhatsApp or FBs Messenger in the west and WeChat in the east.

Signal had at Jan 1st 2021 around 40 mln users. WhatsApp had 2 bln. FBs Messenger had 1.2 bln.

Between Jan 1st 2021 and Augst 1st 2021, Signal also lost around 60% DAUs

Kind'of hard to use a messaging app, no matter how feature rich it is, when you have nobody to message.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#25
post #23

Agreed with article, but for ordinary users I would have much easier to understand reasons why I ditched Signal some time ago after years of use: 1. It's unreliable, if you switch between mobile network and WiFi connection it takes way long time for Signal to register to change to send/receive the messages, while Whatsapp has no such problem and send message almost instantly. 2. Devs ignore users, I waited years for…

theres another thing you didnt mention The average users mainly cares if their friends are on it. As it stands most people use either iMessage, WhatsApp or FBs Messenger in the west and WeChat in the east. Signal had at Jan 1st 2021 around 40 mln users. WhatsApp had 2 bln. FBs Messenger had 1.2 bln. Between Jan 1st 2021 and Augst 1st 2021, Signal also lost around 60% DAUs Kind'of hard to use a messaging app, no matte…

Well of course that's the most important one, which goes even without saying, I was just working with (my real life) scenario when you are able to convince someone and then they have to deal with inferior service.

There were 2 things I liked about Signal, shared photos had much higher resolution than compress Whatsapp mess and I didn't need extra app for SMS, I couldn't really care less about privacy, since it's no more private than half of the other messengers.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#26

>Signal also notably isn't self-hostable: there's no way to run your own signal server, and control your data. Marlinspike ruthlessly shuts down anyone attempting to build alternate clients or servers that could communicate with the main one. That is perfectly wrong. As a maintainer of https://axolotl.chat , a third-party signal client initially built for Ubuntu Touch but which runs on almost everything now, I can te…

The first thing I saw on the github page is a screenshot talking about a shooting, maybe it's a quote from something? I'm unsure but letting you know it's rather offputting.

I couldn't find what the signup process is like, it says it doesn't require creating an account on the official Signal app but I assume you still need to use a phone number?

Re: Why Not Signal?

#27
post #20
post #4

Messaging is so low bandwidth I'm surprised there's not an E2E p2p chat client that uses a DHT to find all the other clients.

There is: https://jami.net/ However mobile messaging apps have trouble maintaining even a single TCP connection (even with optimizations like XEP-0352).

Indeed, DHTs in generally are pretty hard on phones, even laptops. Even a few dozen packets a minute can use a fair bit of battery.

Seems like a DHT service running on a Raspberry Pi (on wall power), ddwrt router, maybe a plugin for "Home assistant" (an open source Siri/Google home like widget) would allow a phone to get the advantages of a DHT, without chewing through expensive mobile batteries or bandwidth.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#28

>Signal also notably isn't self-hostable: there's no way to run your own signal server, and control your data. Marlinspike ruthlessly shuts down anyone attempting to build alternate clients or servers that could communicate with the main one. That is perfectly wrong. As a maintainer of https://axolotl.chat , a third-party signal client initially built for Ubuntu Touch but which runs on almost everything now, I can te…

This should be promoted more! I had no idea this existed and I've been keenly following Signal for years. Will check it out, thanks for sharing.

It is probably literally because it is so under the radar that it hasnt been shut down.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#29
post #27
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is: https://jami.net/ However mobile messaging apps have trouble maintaining even a single TCP connection (even with optimizations like XEP-0352).

Indeed, DHTs in generally are pretty hard on phones, even laptops. Even a few dozen packets a minute can use a fair bit of battery. Seems like a DHT service running on a Raspberry Pi (on wall power), ddwrt router, maybe a plugin for "Home assistant" (an open source Siri/Google home like widget) would allow a phone to get the advantages of a DHT, without chewing through expensive mobile batteries or bandwidth.

Yes, but then again you could just self-host an XMPP server on your Raspberry Pi.

Re: Why Not Signal?

#30
post #29
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, DHTs in generally are pretty hard on phones, even laptops. Even a few dozen packets a minute can use a fair bit of battery. Seems like a DHT service running on a Raspberry Pi (on wall power), ddwrt router, maybe a plugin for "Home assistant" (an open source Siri/Google home like widget) would allow a phone to get the advantages of a DHT, without chewing through expensive mobile batteries or bandwidth.

Yes, but then again you could just self-host an XMPP server on your Raspberry Pi.

Right, but seems like that's complicated enough to prevent mass adoption, also not particularly secure from traffic analysis. A p2p client could potentially have e2e encryption, be pretty much turn key, find all clients globally, and be traffic analysis resistant. Ideally as easy to use as signal.
Post reply on HN