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

531–540 of 665 posts

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

#531

Post by runeks »

qqii wrote: post #318
wjntzf wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The project is brand-new, what do you expect? In any case, the end-game is to use MOB for the transaction and instantly convert to fiat, so volatility would not be of concern to the end-user

How would that be any more private as every transaction can be deduced by the on/off ramp.

Exactly. Inside MobileCoin, transaction amounts are disguised. But if every MobileCoin transaction is preceded and succeeded by conversion into national currency at a centralized exchange (to whom you are not anonymous) then using MobileCoin becomes completely pointless.

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

#532

Post by fauigerzigerk »

sequoia wrote: post #460
JeremyNT wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This kind of anti-feature is not what I signed up for. At the risk of sounding like a Signal simp: don’t use this feature if you’d don’t like it? I have no idea whether this is a good or bad idea, I figure the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and I haven’t had a chance to try the signal payments feature, but I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here at least as far as “I’ll withhold judgement til I…

>don’t use this feature if you’d don’t like it?

How do I prove that I didn't use it? And why on earth would I want a messaging app to put a target like that on my back if I'm not even using the feature? With this feature, the likelihood of someone demanding access to the app grows from almost zero to pretty significant.

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

#533

Post by Vinnl »

stonesweep wrote: post #189
hiq wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> distributed only in an unsigned insecure form or in a signed/verified manner only if you give up your privacy to install with Google Play or the Apple store. > Those that only run open source software like myself have no secure way to run Signal short of compiling every release by hand which is impractical. Nope: https://signal.org/android/apk/

You may be missing the subtle point - the APK provided is the same one from Google Play, which includes the Google SDK encumbered libraries (links? hooks? features?). If you run a libre device without the Google Play store (non-Google android build) then the software cannot function. The code for the client is open source, but the act of compiling it against the required Play store libraries encumbers the final binar…

Others seem to interpret this as your saying that downloading the APK results in non-free code being present on your system, but

> If you run a libre device without the Google Play store (non-Google android build) then the software cannot function.

is just not true. I don't have the Google Play Store (I'm on a non-Google Android build) and Signal functions just fine.

(Well, mostly fine - it has to maintain its own connection because of course it can't use Google's tooling for that, so it supposedly has more battery impact.)

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

#534

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

nullc wrote: post #366
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.

Ah, the quirks of English language. I hope it's clear messaging here is a noun modifier (is it an "attributive noun"?). This noun and two prepositive adjectives modify the same noun "solution".

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

#535

Post by pixxel »

Klonoar wrote: post #327
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not from Signal but the MobileCoin CEO posted this answer yesterday.

.....

>>The UK also has receiver verification. If I try to send to an account and it doesn't match the name I'm sending to, my bank will warn me. How do you stop impersonation?

A: Signal relies on phone numbers for identities. Other apps that integrate MobileCoin may have a higher threshold for identification.

.....

Reads to me like phone numbers are not going away.

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

#536

Post by Vinnl »

makeworld wrote: post #296
josh2600 wrote: post #2

Hi! I'm the CEO of MobileCoin. If anyone has any questions please feel free to ask here. We've been working on this project for four years and it has been a labor of love. There's a lot of new technology here. We exist in a highly regulated space so it's possible some questions will require reaching out to lawyers to make sure we answer them in a way that's compliant so please don't feel offended if a response takes…

Elsewhere[1] in the thread it's been claimed your organization owns 85% of the total market cap of this coin. Can you speak to this? Is it true or not? If not true, what is the correct percentage? How much is left? 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348

And a follow-up question in case it's not true/unanswerable: any idea where they got that number from?

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

#537

Post by mike-cardwell »

Anyone wants to try this out, install the Beta version of Signal and send some mobilecoin to me at

iHXtgfsScSiaqKFMev8mC5Yogz8uZhTJSUVBM1vkECKPaVVxp9woYvbZJPso4SNx5oCkiU5XrAGZj6XwZMrYGzQztntDUKRka2RHnc6d9NPYaorT7E21jEWobERA77Uzny4VoeChDA9m2MihDLTB47BoJ3S2Lhuhp8U Kbo6jyRpo2zcr5ZucssuBVENGUS4fTK7qZZY8qMXHd9B1MNbA2MgBBzb5fBjberr6v4NKBVo3oFNCS1J3ryX13ZszByxjEU

The UI seems fairly unobtrusive, but I don't know if that's just because I have no contacts that can receive it so I'm not being shown some of it.

I also have no idea how to actually get Mobilecoin to play with. There's no built in way to buy it. They just give you an address you can send to from an exchange.

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

#538

Post by drakonka »

This is raising red flags for me, not only due to the stake some within Signal have within this obscure coin but due to them trying to turn a messaging platform into a payment platform. If they feel like they want to contribute a payment solution, they should do so in a separate product offering.

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

#539

Post by codethief »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #469
codethief wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is: Signal already relies on SGX for lots of other features (Signal PINs & Secure Value Recovery, contact discovery etc. etc.) and these depend on SGX working as advertized.

I wasn't aware that Signal relies on SGX. If I want to use Signal without being exposed to risk of SGX compromise, is it still possible?

For contact discovery, AFAIK no[0].

For everything else: Yes, by setting a randomized long Signal PIN since SGX is effectively used to add entropy to Signal PINs[1]. You can also disable Signal PINs – in this case Signal will simply set a randomized long PIN for you.

[0]: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/

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

#540

Post by perryizgr8 »

leppr wrote: post #350
gruez wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that in your initial comment, you were saying that with decentralized cryptocurrencies you'll be free from third party interference, but with ETH the DAO hacker was subject to the very interference you claimed crypto wasn't subject to. Therefore it weakens your claim from something like "with crypto, nobody can stop you!", to "with crypto, nobody can stop you! ...except if you do something we don't like…

A hard fork in a decentralized cryptocurrency is democratic, users chose which of the 2 new chains assets' they want to keep. No binary winner is decided, the market currently values ETH as 122 times more valuable than ETC, but ETC is not censored. The sentencing of criminals in republics is very removed from democratic action (see drug criminalization).

> A hard fork in a decentralized cryptocurrency is democratic

Yup, and I don't want public votes to decide the amount of money I have.

Post reply on HN