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

Et Tu, Signal?

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 459 posts

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#241

Post by twobitshifter »

IgorPartola wrote: post #100
twobitshifter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Element is unable to do this since they have nobly chosen a federated protocol.

Which part? The part of also integrating SMS functionality? The part where I can message my other contacts who aren't using Matrix via SMS and finding them by phone number? Having a good marketing strategy?

Sorry, I should have quoted. They are “unable to pull something like this” due to being a federated protocol. If they try to add crypto to their app, another app can be used to communicate to the same people in the same way.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#242

Post by Igelau »

timbit42 wrote: post #116
mikece wrote: post #61

I'm a little surprised that nobody is mentioning that any kind of blockchain payment system creates a permanent, public ledger. One US Attorney called Bitcoin's blockchain "prosecution futures" as it's only a matter of time before the sender/receiver addresses for transactions are correlated with unique individuals. This permanent, public record of a transaction between a Signal account and another user or a service…

MobileCoin uses a combination of two other private coins, Monero and Zcash. There are no addresses on the MobileCoins's blockchain to be correlated. Didn't it cross your mind that a private messenger would probably use a private cryptocurrency?

With a "private" crypto-currency you're still making a bet that there's no exploit. Roping payments into a message app increases the attack surface for both.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#243

Post by knorker »

Very much a betrayal. Signal has an image of "for the weak against abuse by the strong". Cryptocurrency is "I'll sell my grandmother and everyone I know for money. HODL YOLO!", which is not exactly compatible.

And it's not just disappointing, it's also dragging the to-the-core corrupt world of these people into Signal.

This is making Signal lose the moral high ground, making it that much easier to drag its name through the mud that is cryptocurrencies.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#244

Post by pmlnr »

MereInterest wrote: post #235
pmlnr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-MS skype was so far peak IM.

Don't forget about when IM networks actually used open standards instead of closed proprietary protocols. Managing all of my accounts through pidgin was a breeze, and didn't leave me swapping between half a dozen different programs trying to remember which networks somebody would typically use.

That was never a thing: Pidgin & the rest had to write their own implementation for many of those protocols, starting with AIM.

There was a tiny period, somewhere in 2006, when many services were XMPP, maybe even federated, but due to the lack of good clients - compared to skype -, it never manifested as good as it should have.

There are now many nice XMPP clients, but the big players now all moved into proprietary territory.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#245

Post by screamingninja »

dijit wrote: post #142
okamiueru wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you say are the cons of Telegram? I've been highly impressed with the UX for quite some time, but have refrained from pushing it (and the likes) onto friends. My family and friends seems to have slowly drifted towards signal, and I haven't bothered affecting that, but if I would go from a pure UX, I'd suggest telegram. So, I'm genuinely curious to know others' thoughts on it. I have only limited knowledge,…

Telegrams stupidity was marketing itself as secure. If it never had, then all arguments and sour intent towards it would be hugely misplaced. As it stands, it’s not E2E by default and it’s E2E scheme is homegrown- which is usually not recommended (though IMO was not a dealbreaker), the big issue there was that there were flaws in the original design of the encryption scheme which makes it harder to look passed the fa…

> As it stands, it’s not E2E by default

Yes, and enabling E2E "secret chats" on Telegram actually hurts user experience, so most non-tech-savvy users avoid it. Additionally, your address book is continuously synced to Telegram servers.

> there’s little preventing Facebook from pushing an update to your phone which backs up all your chats to their cloud

Just to add to your point- WhatsApp currently backs up your chat history to Google Drive or iCloud unencrypted. It requires opt-in but they nudge you frequently.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#246

Post by simias »

skrowl wrote: post #104
simias wrote: post #20

I definitely agree with the article that it felt a bit like a betrayal. I've pushed some friends and family to use it over Telegram despite significant usability issue, and now I see that instead of implementing some IMO basic features like proper message sync and easy backup when you get a new phone, they prefer to implement a... micropayment system? Based on some niche altcoin which doesn't even exist on mainstream…

Telegram is just so much more usable than Signal. The perceived advantage of Signal over Telegram is LITERALLY not having an option for a cloud-synced chat and ONLY having end to end encrypted chats. That's all. You give up of usability to get that advantage. Explain to your mom why she has to give up Telegram to get basically the same functionality as Telegram secret chats. Signals crypto is used by Facebook and was…

Last I checked, end-to-end was only available on the phone app (not the desktop client) and only for one-on-one conversations. That's a pretty huge difference, but one that most people won't even understand or care about.

But the simple fact is that for most people the security profile of Telegram is good enough and its UI is miles ahead of Signal.

I've already complained about that in the past but the fact that the desktop client still won't let me set the spellchecking language is baffling to me. It's an application that's meant mainly for exchanging text, and it won't let me configure the spellchecking, and let's not even talk about formatting options.

It amused me when in the announcement they said that the reason for testing the payments in the UK was that they were English speaking. You can tell that this is an application developed my monolinguals...

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#247

Post by asddubs »

VectorLock wrote: post #200
dexen wrote: post #58

While I'm generally happy with cryptocurrency for reasons of practicality, privacy, and broader governance, connecting both your private communications and your private purchases to your phone number (and to each other) is exceedingly unwise. Especially as most western countries insist on connecting your phone number with government-issued ID. Anybody with technical knowledge and a modicum of appreciation for privacy…

He's been twitter replying to everybody who @s him on some "Zawinsky's Law" variant with "Staaaahhhhhhhpppppp."

every twitter feed expands until it contains a variation of Zawinsky's Law

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#248

Post by vetinari »

eganist wrote: post #236
vetinari wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not FUD. OWS was financed by Open Technology Fund, to the tune of almost $3M, during the years 2013-2016. See here: https://www.opentech.fund/results/supported-projects/open-wh... What is Open Technology Fund? It is a program of Radio Free Asia, which run by US Agency for Global Media, funded by US Congress.

Hey, advisor for a non-signal E2EE chat service here that also benefited from the Open Technology Fund. I recognize that you'd basically just be taking my word for it, but literally all they did was take an application from us, approve it after doing their diligence, and paying Cure53 for an assessment. There was no other involvement or, as you're implying, interference. Just my experience, but I'm publishing this be…

It could be, I believe what you say is very much the truth.

But that doesn't really matter. Even by doing that. these two are associated. Imagine, if there was a non-profit, that took money from some Kremlin or Fobidden City development program, using exactly the same procedure. Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association?

So this one is the same, just with red and white stripes. Definitely not FUD, they did take money from US Gov agency.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#249

Post by jancsika »

Bram Cohen famously called Bitcoin "digital Goldbuggism." Since then he's given talks on cryptocurrency and found bugs in Bitcoin's code that were copied by most of the alt-coins. Now he's even got his own blockchain cryptocurrency called "Chia" that is based on "proof of space-time."

There are numerous devs who are devoted FOSS zealots and randomly dive into the idea of using blockchain to fund their work.

Blockchain seduces hackers the same way Walmart seduced small towns to give it every incentive conceivable to move in and suck up the local economy.

"Et Tu, Signal?" simply isn't a grown-up argument. If it were, the vast majority of Hacker news would have quit adtech and already figured out fast homomorphic encryption by now.

If you want to help, figure out what social problem hackers think they are routing around with blockchain. Then explain sensible approaches to those social problems in a way hackers can understand. If Richard Stallman's endless world tour of his boring-ass one-man-play is any indication, it is possible to convince hackers of ethical arguments that have implications outside of software. But you've got your work cut out for you. (Also notice-- the least convincing part of his play comes when he tries to imply you're a bad person betraying a cause if you write proprietary software.)

Edit: clarification

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#250

Post by eganist »

vetinari wrote: post #248
eganist wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, advisor for a non-signal E2EE chat service here that also benefited from the Open Technology Fund. I recognize that you'd basically just be taking my word for it, but literally all they did was take an application from us, approve it after doing their diligence, and paying Cure53 for an assessment. There was no other involvement or, as you're implying, interference. Just my experience, but I'm publishing this be…

It could be, I believe what you say is very much the truth. But that doesn't really matter. Even by doing that. these two are associated. Imagine, if there was a non-profit, that took money from some Kremlin or Fobidden City development program, using exactly the same procedure. Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association? So this one is the same, just with red and white stripes. Defin…

> Would be that non-profit trustworthy going forward, given their association?

Kinda depends. If the money was authorized by a parliamentary body (with clear legal text around who's receiving funding, what the conditions are, etc), I wouldn't be so worried. If it was authorized by an executive as a disbursement from a random pot, I'd be more worried about strings.

Ergo my comfort with US congressional funding v. a DARPA grant or In-Q-Tel investment.

Post reply on HN