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

361–370 of 665 posts

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

#361

Post by nullc »

codethief wrote: post #173
bilal4hmed wrote: post #103

With Signal not releasing their server code and now this, I regret using and asking a good chunk of my base to move to Signal.

I haven't made up my mind regarding the payments feature yet but yeah, what's up with the server code? Why hasn't it been updated in over a year?[0] Also, why do the Signal developers trust SGX so much and have stayed completely silent about SGX vulnerabilities – even when the cryptographers whose quotes they used to put on the signal.org home page[1] are increasingly critical?[2] Finally, why is there no open commun…

> why do the Signal developers trust SGX so much and have stayed completely silent about SGX vulnerabilities

Maybe because the marketing of their sketchy token scheme depends exclusively on the illusion of SGX security.

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

#362

Post by coconut08 »

warkdarrior wrote: post #321
modeless wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

that's like saying that the internet isn't decentralized because lots of people interact using facebook. that address isn't decentralized, much like facebook isn't. that doesn't mean that bitcoin or the internet aren't decentralized.

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

#363

Post by warkdarrior »

adamsvystun wrote: post #213
bilal4hmed wrote: post #103

With Signal not releasing their server code and now this, I regret using and asking a good chunk of my base to move to Signal.

This is not entirely true. There has been a delay (11 month) in the sync of the server code with a public GitHub repo. Currently all commits are there: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/commits/master

> There has been a delay (11 month) in the sync

That is quite an understatement. This is like Facebook saying "we will protect your privacy, but there is a slight delay".

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

#364

Post by climb_stealth »

JeremyNT wrote: post #346
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.…

This kind of anti-feature is not what I signed up for. I just wanted a secure messenger normal users could understand! It seems like a simple enough problem that Signal solved well (apart from the phone number requirement). Sadly, now it feels like Signal was just a long game trojan for Marlinspike to onboard users to a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme. This has nothing to do with its core functionality and it makes me…

> I've wasted my influence with my non-technical friends convincing them to adopt Signal, and I don't forsee convincing them to switch yet again to something different.

This has bitten me before. Now I'm thinking that every recommendation and suggestion to adopt must come with a "for now this is the best way to do it, but it will probably change again". And somehow try to prepare the non-technical people for that.

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

#365

Post by howinteresting »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #258
chrisco255 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but those shares still represent the same company plus the new investment money raised by raising the shares. No. Your shares were _diluted_ by the company issuing new shares. Now your 100 shares are worth half as much. Shares have predicted forward value embedded in their valuation. When you buy a share, you're betting that company will continue to grow. If it's having to raise money and issue new stock, odds are…

> No. Your shares were _diluted_ by the company issuing new shares. Now your 100 shares are worth half as much. That's not correct. A company sells shares in exchange for cash. That cash is owned by the company, which is represented by the shares. Companies can't simply dilute away their shareholders like you're suggesting. The money raised by selling shares doesn't simply disappear.

> Companies can't simply dilute away their shareholders like you're suggesting.

They absolutely can. When you buy shares, or exercise options, in an early stage company the documents clearly specify that the shares can be diluted, which is how it's on solid legal footing.

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

#366

Post by nullc »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #270

Again, Signal shows there's some undercurrents going on constantly in the organization and bringing private and ethical messaging solution to the public is not the sole goal. Another affirmation for those who kept on recommending Matrix/GNU Jami/XMPP instead. At this point, if you really need this broad functionality Signal are aiming to provide, why not Status.im? At least their tech is cool.

Careful, "ethical messaging" may not mean what you think it means.

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

#367

Post by leppr »

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.…

> 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.

What are the arguments?

Don't you think that as data becomes more and more valuable, "freedom of transaction" is a natural evolution of "freedom of communication"?

In an environment where only "legally valueless" data circulates freely, the few entities that are actually able to monetize this data become gigantic monopolies (Google, FB, ...), while most individual parties are either forced to play by their rules (Youtube, Patreon, ...) or filtered out by startup costs.

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

#368

Post by yborg »

Klonoar wrote: post #306
xur17 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Signal was serious about this they would have launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to their users. Agreed. They either would have launched their own fork and distributed the vast majority to their users, or at the very least chosen an existing project that was fairly well distributed. This makes me believe they primarily did this in return for an incentive from Mobilecoin.

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.

And what is the downside to them if this isn't entirely true? On one hand you have tens of millions of dollars and potentially a lot more, on the other you have a few angry nerds.

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

#369

Post by lmm »

anonporridge wrote: post #178
CynicusRex wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No “pre-mine” doesn't mean fairly distributed. Bitcoin is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme as well. Early adopters mine or buy large proportions at negligible prices while late adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large prices.

By this definition, every company stock is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme. In fact, company stock is WAY worse, because the majority of people are legally prohibited from investing in private companies unless they're an accredited investor (already rich). So, only rich people (other than founders and early employees) are allowed to buy in at super low prices before handing off the bag to the public.

> By this definition, every company stock is a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme.

No because the company's income doesn't come from selling more stock, but from selling valuable products. (Companies that don't have actual revenue are indeed multi-level marketing pyramid schemes and there are some of them around, but they're the exception rather than the rule).

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

#370

Post by Barrin92 »

bilal4hmed wrote: post #103

With Signal not releasing their server code and now this, I regret using and asking a good chunk of my base to move to Signal.

I didn't understand the hysteria about Whatsapp to begin with. Yes, Facebook doesn't exactly have great brand recognition but by all indications the TOC change didn't even actually change anything for individual end users but people kept bugging me about switching to Signal.

Compared to the ICO crypto shenanigans of Telegram and now this I don't see a reason to switch. People also kept trying to get me to use Brave instead of Chrome, and the first time I opened it there was crypto advertisement everywhere.

Post reply on HN