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 throu…
> Cryptocurrency is "I'll sell my grandmother and everyone I know for money. HODL YOLO!"
Payments seems at least potentially to have a lot of utility. Don't understand the kneejerk hate for this. For me social media direction is more dubious
Did anyone ever consider that this is actually on purpose to deter people from using Signal by it's authors? Lets imagine, theoretically, some three letter agency in the US has forced signal to backdoor their platform somehow, and so signal stops posting source code to the clients, and everyone just keeps on using it for a year even though the authors thought that maybe this would be a big red "DANGER" signal to the…
Theories like this are interesting because if you have a hundred of them one is probably true. It's definitely plausible even if it seems on the face unlikely. It's interesting enough that this is what I'm going to take from the story anyway so thx for putting on the hat
Reminds me of the so-called "10th man rule" made famous in World War Z.
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…
There are no known attacks against Telegram. The problem is entirely that its cryptography was sketchy and just plain weird to begin with. It wasn't wrong , per se, but raised some eyebrows. And then some of the questionable choices were silently fixed removing the ability to MITM, etc, but with no real notice. It's not FUD.
More than one red flag there, there was the claim of it being secure just because the spec was out there and nobody had broken it yet.
Did anyone ever consider that this is actually on purpose to deter people from using Signal by it's authors? Lets imagine, theoretically, some three letter agency in the US has forced signal to backdoor their platform somehow, and so signal stops posting source code to the clients, and everyone just keeps on using it for a year even though the authors thought that maybe this would be a big red "DANGER" signal to the…
That's highly unlikely and not the way one deals, with this kind of thing. The responsible thing to do in that case is to shutdown your operation, just what lavabit did back in 2013.
I don't understand what all the all fuss about. How much money people have really that you need 100 payment apps to send money on top of existing banks? I just wise/transferwise for overseas transfer other than that my bank. You think I am poor minority and don't care about payment drama?
It’s not really about payments. The scam is to create a new altcoin, give most of the altcoin supply to the founders, then try to force as many people as possible to use the altcoin by deploying it as part of something popular like Signal. Now if anyone wants to use Signal’s money transfer feature, they have to buy MOB. The CEO of MobileCoin was in the threads yesterday pushing the website where they were selling MOB…
I understand what you saying it is indeed scam. But my question can I use Signal just to chat with my friends/family and ignore everything else and live my life peacefully? In other words, are they forcing every user to use this "MOB" to transfer money for something? If not, then we can ignore them :)
It's anonymous with some caveats. The transaction graph is still there, it's just that there are decoy inputs/outputs which provides plausible deniability. However, over repeated transactions the plausible deniability weakens. ie. having an output to a darknet market in one of your transaction is easily explainable by bad luck, but it's present in several transactions it becomes suspicious enough that the police can…
This might be true of the particular decoy approach used with Monero, but I don’t think it’s true in general; e.g. with mixer/tumbler services. If every transaction that everyone does has some outputs to darknet markets (because they’re popular and high-volume), and some outputs to legitimate businesses (because they’re also popular and high-volume) then that really is reasonable doubt that any particular individual…
> If every transaction that everyone does has some outputs to darknet markets ... and some outputs to legitimate businesses ... then that really is reasonable doubt that any particular individual did anything bad.
It says that no particular individual made a Bad Guy payment, but that all of them facilitated it by providing cover noise.
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…
In my experience, most people who project nefarious intentions on the government have no experience working with or within the government. The government, after all, is a big thing with no unified goals or intentions. But for some reason, for some people, 'government' always means 'bad'.
Try transferring from an iOS phone to Android. Try transferring messages to a new desktop (you can't). It's 2021, I don't want to be platform locked and none of the other popular messaging apps have that issue.
Last I checked (about a year ago I think) Whatsapp backups were platform-locked as well.
Not completely. WhatsApp pushed out an Android-compatible backup option on their BlackBerry 10 app when they announced that they were shutting the app down a few years ago. But it was behind a notice that said it was 'not supported', even though it worked fine. Only to Android though.