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

211–220 of 263 posts

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#211

Post by hjek »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #191
root_axis wrote: post #159

I'm a big cryptocurrency skeptic, but if they had used a more reputable coin instead of a pre-mined coin distributed in such a fashion as to enrich the founders, they could have avoided most of this backlash. People who aren't enthusiasts already understand that the raison d'etre of the cryptocurrency landscape is to get rich quick, but these guys got so greedy they've even pissed off the enthusiast community. Unfort…

Agreed. Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, but it wouldn’t have enriched the founders. Pre-mined altcoin scams have been around so long that everyone in the crypto world knows to avoid them. Building up a dedicated following of people using an encrypted messenger app was a genius way of submarining a pre-mined crypto scam into an unsuspecting userbase. I suspect a lot of us are going back to all of the p…

> Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done,

Those cryptocurrencies have a large energy consumption. I assume that part of the reason to go with MobileCoin is because it's less power hungry.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#212

Post by matoro »

Evan__ wrote: post #197
progx wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More code, more possible bugs, more updates needed. All that things are not necessary, they could create a separate app "Signal Pay" and everybody who wants it can use that. It made no sense to implement everything in one app.

Maybe not from a security perspective, but WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of implementing everything in one app.

WeChat has been extremely successful by virtue of being the only app the government allows you to use in a country of a billion people.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#213

Post by eplanit »

bo0tzz wrote: post #206
eplanit wrote: post #201

I just went to Donorbox to cancel my $10 monthly donation. Clearly, they don't need such humble support anymore. What's after cryptocurrency, ads?

I'd be much happier about (properly implemented) ads, than about this move.

Yes. I'd be happy to pay a buck or two per month instead of ads or gimmicks. An old fashioned model but I think they could still make a fortune on that small of a fee alone.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#214

Post by Sander_Marechal »

prophesi wrote: post #173
FlyingSnake wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a strawman argument. Can't it be the users from group#3 who's sad to see Signal turn into WeChat? After all the lessons learned from Keybase are open for all to see. WhatsApp doesn't include payment mechanism in many markets, why is Signal trying to waste developer resources on unwanted features?

Yep, I'm a group 3 user who has been defending Signal on HN for years. I probably won't be leaving the platform since it took so much effort to get friends/family to use it. But this whole scenario is inexcusable. We've seen the failure of Telegram's ICO. The rise of spam accounts with Keybase's Stellar "space drops". FB's failed attempts at digital currency. But what irks me the most is that the Github repo for thei…

In other words, they new it was a bad idea that would draw backlash, but they did it anyway

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#215

Post by birracerveza »

It's good that you added WTF to the title so I can know in advance how to feel about the news.

Without it I would have actually needed to actually read the article before forming my opinion, but now I can go into it with the right mindset, or even better skip straight to the comment section already enraged. Thanks!

---

Please note that I am complaining about the headline baiting. While I believe that crypto is the future I agree with the sentiment that the way Signal went and did it was poorly handled at best and shady at worst.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#216

Post by tzs »

aseipp wrote: post #151
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…

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.

Don't forget Zelle, which is similar to Venmo but is already built into the apps and websites of a large number of US banks. It's owned indirectly by Bank of America, BB&T, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. Other major banks, including Chase and Citi, also include it.

That means that a very large number of Americans can do quick and easy US to US payments by phone number of email just using their normal banking apps and sites.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#217

Post by beojan »

ROARosen wrote: post #208
progx wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More code, more possible bugs, more updates needed. All that things are not necessary, they could create a separate app "Signal Pay" and everybody who wants it can use that. It made no sense to implement everything in one app.

> It made no sense to implement everything in one app. WeChat would disagree [1]. There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with potential for increased user adoption because of that ("please download signal so I can pay you easily") and I don't see this as inherently bad. But they should have used a reputable coin instead of some scammy pyramid token. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/…

> There is definitely a place for payments in a social app.

Not in a country that has free, (de facto) instant bank transfers (Faster Payments).

If the problem there is that you need someone's bank details and not just their phone number, there's Barclays' Pingit.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#218

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
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…

> there are 3 attitudes towards Signal I am in group 4. I didn’t care that Moxie calls the shots and requires a phone number. And I was thrilled to have a secure communication app, from when Signal was TextSecure. I hate this to the point that I’m dropping Signal. The only reason to choose MobileCoin is Moxie’s personal affiliation to it. Meanwhile, this integration massively increases Signal’s regulatory cross secti…

"Moxie just sold out Signal’s First Amendment credentials."

Id argue he just created a new front:

freedom of association.

I still think you are right with your concerns.

You say he sold out credentials. I would say he bravely staked out a new claim.

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#219

Post by hedora »

Bjartr wrote: post #185
sneak wrote: post #152

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. 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.

There’s a set of people on HN that downvote and flag anything that they disagree with. I don’t really understand the mindset, but have noticed they usually agree with whatever the US government, FAANG or other authority is pushing for. (Maybe they’re authoritarian, and that’s why they think anything outside approved narratives needs a downvote? That’s my best guess.)

Anyway, it’s best to treat them like trolls: just ignore them. Upvote anything that renders in gray and isn’t violating site guidelines. I’ve found my best comments tend to wildly oscillate around zero for a while, then end up slightly positive. :-)

Re: Signal Adds Cryptocurrency Support

#220

Post by monokh »

hjek wrote: post #211
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, but it wouldn’t have enriched the founders. Pre-mined altcoin scams have been around so long that everyone in the crypto world knows to avoid them. Building up a dedicated following of people using an encrypted messenger app was a genius way of submarining a pre-mined crypto scam into an unsuspecting userbase. I suspect a lot of us are going back to all of the p…

> Monero or ZCash would have gotten the job done, Those cryptocurrencies have a large energy consumption. I assume that part of the reason to go with MobileCoin is because it's less power hungry.

Transacting the coin itself rarely has any energy footprint. It's the security of the network that requires the mining and that is very separate to signal using it.

Unless the idea is that by using another coin, they don't add to the security requirements. That's a dubious line of thinking.

Post reply on HN