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

401–410 of 459 posts

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#401

Post by qqii »

josh2600 wrote: post #387
qqii wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't I find details about your node partner vetting process and what the requirements are to be considered a partner to run a node?

We don't vet node operators. Node operators each individually choose who to peer with in a liquid democracy. Anyone can peer with anyone else; consensus is an emergent property of the graph.

Okay, so do the current node operators publish their peering requirements?

Given your description it sounds like governance is whatever the MobileCoin foundation and its partners dictates. Unlike the consensus in this thread I think there's a lot to like and explore for a privacy token that chooses a different set of tradeoffs but the opaque governance, token holder distribution/circulating supply and lack of acknowledgement to the Monero project really sets it back.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#402

Post by alexnewman »

xvector wrote: post #400
josh2600 wrote: post #275

Good Morning, I am the CEO of MobileCoin. A few points: 1) I started MobileCoin to fund Signal. That’s it. I believe that a world with a well-funded signal is a better place. In order for signal to compete in the 21st century with messaging apps around the world they need a payment story. MobileCoin is the only thing ever built that is both privacy protecting and fast that meets the standards of data retention signal…

So instead of contributing to the Monero project to improve the space for everyone, you decide to fragment the privacy coin space instead with a sketchy premined coin.

I think it’s pretty clear mobilecoin coin never be added to monero

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#403

Post by mikeyla85 »

xvector wrote: post #400
josh2600 wrote: post #275

Good Morning, I am the CEO of MobileCoin. A few points: 1) I started MobileCoin to fund Signal. That’s it. I believe that a world with a well-funded signal is a better place. In order for signal to compete in the 21st century with messaging apps around the world they need a payment story. MobileCoin is the only thing ever built that is both privacy protecting and fast that meets the standards of data retention signal…

So instead of contributing to the Monero project to improve the space for everyone, you decide to fragment the privacy coin space instead with a sketchy premined coin.

You...don't believe in new coins, innovation on features, or marketplace competition?

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#404

Post by josh2600 »

ascorbic wrote: post #364
josh2600 wrote: post #275

Good Morning, I am the CEO of MobileCoin. A few points: 1) I started MobileCoin to fund Signal. That’s it. I believe that a world with a well-funded signal is a better place. In order for signal to compete in the 21st century with messaging apps around the world they need a payment story. MobileCoin is the only thing ever built that is both privacy protecting and fast that meets the standards of data retention signal…

What financial interest does Moxie have in MobileCoin Inc, MobileCoin TS Ltd or any connected business? Does he stand to gain from the success of MobileCoin? You could have avoided most of the criticisms if you had a clear explanation of why you pre-mined. Saying that you intend to sell it is not as reassuring as you seem to think it is.

The pre-mine has to do with using stellar consensus protocol. Basically if you don't have staking or mining (which I personally believe are detrimental to the longevity of these networks) then you end up with a pre-mine. Essentially all of the game theoretical systems for rewarding operations of the network pit the interests of the miners/stakers against the interests of the users of the network.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#405

Post by josh2600 »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #367
josh2600 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MobileCoin has made over 50% of the coins available for purchase. We are currently figuring out how to give away coins while remaining regulatory compliant.

I'll ask again: Why are you geoblocking US based users from the sales page you linked previously?

Out of an abundance of caution and advice from our counsel. The regulatory landscape in the United States is complicated. It is hard to predict what is and what is not ok. We tend to be far more conservative than other players in the space.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#406

Post by josh2600 »

qqii wrote: post #401
josh2600 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't vet node operators. Node operators each individually choose who to peer with in a liquid democracy. Anyone can peer with anyone else; consensus is an emergent property of the graph.

Okay, so do the current node operators publish their peering requirements? Given your description it sounds like governance is whatever the MobileCoin foundation and its partners dictates. Unlike the consensus in this thread I think there's a lot to like and explore for a privacy token that chooses a different set of tradeoffs but the opaque governance, token holder distribution/circulating supply and lack of acknowl…

The MobileCoin Foundation only publishes software, the nodes decide whether they want to run that software or not. Ultimately all of the nodes can run whatever code they want and call it MobileCoin if they can agree upon it.

The governance is actually quite simple: a set of decentralized nodes individually choose what software to run and who to peer with. Consensus is an emergent property of that trust graph.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#407

Post by ohyeshedid »

josh2600 wrote: post #405
ohyeshedid wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll ask again: Why are you geoblocking US based users from the sales page you linked previously?

Out of an abundance of caution and advice from our counsel. The regulatory landscape in the United States is complicated. It is hard to predict what is and what is not ok. We tend to be far more conservative than other players in the space.

I find it strange that you bundle your currency ecosystem into a product that is widely used in the US and you haven't ironed out how to sell it directly to them. Also, it's a strange choice geoblocking the traffic rather than serving a static lander explaining the issues. This entire situation is rife with strange choices.

I see risk exposure increasing greatly across the board, for Signal operations, users, and everyone involved from your side due to this merging of services.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#408

Post by BlueMatt »

josh2600 wrote: post #406
qqii wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so do the current node operators publish their peering requirements? Given your description it sounds like governance is whatever the MobileCoin foundation and its partners dictates. Unlike the consensus in this thread I think there's a lot to like and explore for a privacy token that chooses a different set of tradeoffs but the opaque governance, token holder distribution/circulating supply and lack of acknowl…

The MobileCoin Foundation only publishes software, the nodes decide whether they want to run that software or not. Ultimately all of the nodes can run whatever code they want and call it MobileCoin if they can agree upon it. The governance is actually quite simple: a set of decentralized nodes individually choose what software to run and who to peer with. Consensus is an emergent property of that trust graph.

What do you do differently from Stellar or Ripple at the consensus layer which both started out with similar ideas, but quickly found that their validators fall apart due to the strongly-connected validator set requirement not being met? In other words, how do you avoid the exact same fate that both Stellar and Ripple ran into in their consensus models when they also tried to let "node individually choose"?

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#409

Post by kiwidrew »

madars wrote: post #169
thomasjudge wrote: post #74

The source is GPL3, right? Could someone fork it without the cryptocurrency code?

Signal explicitly disallows third party clients https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

This outright hostility towards third-party clients was how I knew that Signal was just a wolf wearing open-source clothing. Glad I stayed far far away.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#410

Post by thinkmassive »

josh2600 wrote: post #387
qqii wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't I find details about your node partner vetting process and what the requirements are to be considered a partner to run a node?

We don't vet node operators. Node operators each individually choose who to peer with in a liquid democracy. Anyone can peer with anyone else; consensus is an emergent property of the graph.

Sounds like “proof of authority” which is often used for testnets, where reliability is far more important than decentralization.
Post reply on HN