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

Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 665 posts

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#321

Post by warkdarrior »

modeless wrote: post #245
lottin wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin rates worse than North Korea in terms of wealth distribution as measured by the Gini coefficient. [1] [1] https://blog.dshr.org/2018/10/gini-coefficients-of-cryptocur...

All calculations of this sort are fatally flawed because they assume all the coins in one address are owned by one person. That would be like calculating the US Gini coefficient assuming that all bank accounts are owned by the CEO of the bank.

If many coin owners share the same address, that is not very decentralized, is it?

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#322

Post by flyinglizard »

cdogl wrote: post #302

Long-time Signal user here, with a number of technical and non-technical friends, colleagues and acquaintances who also use it. I don't know who was asking for this. And I think it really dilutes Signal's message. I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to secure, private communication. Some people may hold the same belief for the right to transfer funds. I don't agree and I suspect many others feel the same.…

Communication platforms like Signal live or die by network effects. If payment is incorporated as a first class citizen into other platforms, Signal would need it as well to maintain its network - just like it would need the capability to transfer photos or other non-textual items.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#323

Post by whimsicalism »

gruez wrote: post #308
chrisco255 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is incorrect. Stock represents actual ownership of a scarce resource (a company). That company would have value whether or not it was explicitly sold as a stock. The value doesn’t come from the stock. Depending on the voting rights embedded in the share, your ownership is likely meaningless. It doesn't guarantee you rights to dividends necessarily and even if it does, the company can just choose to never issue…

>As we saw with GameStop, they can rug pull on you at any time. With decentralized cryptos like BTC & ETH, that can't happen from your own private wallet. You can always transact. ETH is probably not the best example here because they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.

> they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.

"People" here being criminals that exploited a flaw in the DAO, yeah?

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#324

Post by Klonoar »

hn8788 wrote: post #320
Klonoar wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Marlinspike's been an advisor to MobileCoin from like... the beginning. The article also notes that neither he nor Signal own any actual MobileCoins.

Signal may not own any MobileCoins, but the CEO of MobileCoin said: > MobileCoin has not yet paid Signal anything for integrating MobileCoin. We intend to donate a great deal of money to Signal over the coming years.

Yes, I've read that. I find it a stretch to draw that conclusion though, as if it's some back door deal for funding.

For all the criticisms of cryptocurrency (and I have many...), I don't particularly see anything on MobileCoin's work that indicates the usual shady cryptocurrency stuff. I'm not sure it belongs in Signal, but I do think this stuff can be evaluated without people starting conspiracy theories.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#325

Post by qqii »

ivoras wrote: post #68

Well, if any cryptocurrency is to gain really wide adoption, this is the way to go: integrate it into something a large number of people already use. And judging by what WeChat does, a chat client is an excellent choice - after all, money sending is a way of communicating something (an abstract form of "value" in this case). I only wish it were done differently - maybe we'll get answers to these questions: - Why not…

INAL but an airdrop may run afowl of securities laws. As for the seccond point I think the choice is actually pretty apt - most other cryptocurrencies aren't private and those that are aren't especially user friendly (they cite block times).

Since Signal's sever is centralised, uses SGX and they have no intention of federation it makes sense that the cryptocurrency they chose has similar tradeoffs.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#326

Post by gruez »

rvz wrote: post #97

So when Keybase added Stellar support for payments, this was met with lots of hostility and disappointment, such as 'cryptocoin bullshit' [0] or 'Yeah, I am not going to use any product associated with anything cryptocurrency. Just smells bad. [1] Now the same thing has happened on Signal; HN's favourite messaging app. So why is this met with warm welcoming arms especially when they are also going into cryptocurrenci…

Not sure about how it looked when you posted, but right now a casual scan of the top voted top level comments show that people are mostly against it.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#327

Post by Klonoar »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #317
Klonoar wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this particularly matters given that Signal is actively working on not requiring phone numbers.

Signal is actively working on other identifiers than a phone number, but can you cite proof that no phone will be required at all? I got the impression that Signal will still require a phone number at signup to do SMS verification, and only then give you a way to provide non-phone-number identifiers to contacts.

Eh, fair. I cannot cite proof, only note that every instance I've seen Signal promise this feature has been worded in a way that indicates no phone number would be required.

It is unfortunate that I don't see many from Signal on this forum, as it'd be nice if someone would just clarify this already considering the popularity of it as a feature request.

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#329

Post by gruez »

whimsicalism wrote: post #323
gruez wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As we saw with GameStop, they can rug pull on you at any time. With decentralized cryptos like BTC & ETH, that can't happen from your own private wallet. You can always transact. ETH is probably not the best example here because they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.

> they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork. "People" here being criminals that exploited a flaw in the DAO, yeah?

Just like how the US financial system only freezes the assets of Bad Guys, right? As for GME? We had to rugpull them because they were manipulating the market[1].

[1] Yes I know that wasn't the real reason why trading was halted

Re: Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

#330

Post by qqii »

raspyberr wrote: post #131

Super sad that they didn't choose Monero.

Similarly dissapointed but looking at Signal's past choices (barely open source server, no plans to federate, aggression against modified clients, extensive use and lack of criticism for SGX) monero wasn't even on the table.
Post reply on HN