Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by fX0rObfoMN4 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

wjntzf wrote: post #186

mikeiz404 wrote: post #55

For those wondering about volatility... > MobileCoin also remains even more volatile than older cryptocurrencies, with constant price swings that will significantly change the balances in a user's Signal wallet over the course of days or even hours—hardly the sort of issue that Venmo users have to deal with. (Since March 27, MobileCoin's value has shot up nearly 600 percent, possibly due to rumors of the impending Si…

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

Why wouldn't they design it as a stable coin?

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

#592

Post by sequoia » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #532

sequoia wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

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

#593

Post by M2Ys4U » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

qqii wrote: post #316

Anon1096 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any tax implications of sending someone cryptocurrency that has appreciated? Say you owned 1 million in mobilecoin a month ago that is now 6 million, can you just send it to someone and avoid the capital gains tax? And if not, do apps like Signal have to report these earnings on transfer from mobilecoin to USD? (since signal plans to facilitate it in some way)

In the UK (where the beta is being launch) every disposal (buy, sell, trade) counts towards income tax. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-on-cryptoasse...

Disposing of a crytoasset requires paying Capital Gains Tax, not Income Tax

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

#594

Post by crazypython » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #484

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the "key image" cryptography, but I can't fathom how any cryptography, no matter how smart it is, could prevent the user from: 1) Creating a backup of their wallet on disk. 2) Sending their coins somewhere, but not broadcasting the transaction to the network, instead storing it in a file. 3) Restoring from the backup 4) Sending the coins to a different address = double spending them. 5) Broadcastin…

The client trusts a list of centralized validator servers, albeit protected by SGX, to resolve conflicts. At least according to: https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/mobilecoin/tree/mast...

> The MobileCoin Consensus Protocol solves the Byzantine Agreement Problem by requiring each user to specify a set of peers that they trust, called a quorum. Quorums are based on the real-life trust relationships between individuals, businesses, and other organizations that compose the MobileCoin Network.

How does this solve network splits or honest disagreements?

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

#595

Post by dunefox » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

edent wrote: post #583

hiq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most banks let the user block receiving payments from specific accounts. How do you stop harassers sending unwanted money? First time I read about that, how does this work in practice? A person regularly sends you small amounts such that all you see is their name whenever you log into your bank account?

Yes. In the UK you can send a payment reference alongside the payment. Imagine getting a dozen messages saying £0.01 From: Your Stalker Ex. Ref: I just want you back! Or similar. It's a real problem.

Then ignore it? How is this a problem when this person is stalking you in the first place?

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

#596

Post by anoraca » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #464

sequoia wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha yeah I never did learn all about modes and had to google commands or go to the mod channel and ask for help not infrequently, but irc does get held up as an example of “a simple and perfectly decent tool” and my point is that being simple and perfectly OK is not enough, it needs to also be user friendly and accessible to the lay person. I think we’re violently agreeing.

IRC was simple and decent 20 years ago. Not today. Or even 10 years ago. The world has moved (very very far) on.

Discord is basically modern IRC. Twitch.tv chat is IRC based.

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

#597

Post by JeremyNT » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

jakecopp wrote: post #443

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…

> The state of secure messaging is really bleak. I wish Matrix had an IM-style client that was decent enough for non-technical users to adopt. See Element [1] which uses Matrix [2]. It feels like IM, and is super simple to onboard new users. I'm not involved with it, but I'm a huge fan of the Matrix ecosystem. If you want group chats to be mixed in with 1-1 chats, try SchildiChat [3], a fork of Element. [1]: https://…

I occasionally use Element on my Android device, waiting for it to get to the point where I can seriously recommend it as an alternative to silos like Signal or Telegram. It's sadly not at that point.

Fundamentally, Element "feels" more like an IRC client than a typical IM client like Signal. It isn't focused on direct, one-off, or small group communications (this isn't a technical thing and it has nothing to do with federation, it's simply the UX paradigm that Element has adopted).

The SchildiChat fork looks promising, although it's clearly too early to recommend it. It's not even available on the Google Play store, which makes it unsuitable for non-technical users.

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

#598

Post by ybalkind » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #172

Geee wrote: post #83

There are 250 million units of mobilecoin, and majority of them are owned by the founders. Only 37.5 million have been distributed. With current price ($65), they're worth $14B already. This makes the project a scam and impossible for it to work as a reliable money that holds value. Bitcoin had no pre-mine and has been fairly distributed from the start.

The founding organization owns 85% of the total market cap of a coin? That should be raising red flags for everyone involved. There is no valid reason for the vast majority of what is supposedly a currency to be owned by the company that created it. Imagine if PayPal launched but required everyone to transact in fractional shares of PayPal to get anything done. Oh and by the way, those shares are majority owned by th…

Can you spell out why is that fundamentally bad? I'm asking in good faith not to be oppositional, apologies if its a stupid question. But if you were buying shares in a company it would not matter if most the shares were held by the company (as long as there is enough liquidity to sell your shares in future). Why is it different with the currency? I get that its making the founders rich so perhaps they have greedy intentions, but why does this inherently undermine the validity of the currency?

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

#599

Post by runeks » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

robjan wrote: post #578

runeks wrote: post #504

> MobileCoin only began trading as an actual currency with real value in December of last year—until then, it was running as a valueless "testnet"—and its 250 million coins, at around $69 each, are currently worth almost $17 billion dollars in total. No. This is simply not true. You don't arrive at the value of a set of "things" by multiplying the best price for a single "thing" by the number of "things" you want to…

That's the same with any stock, currency or crypto though. If you want to sell the whole market cap then it's worthless.

No, it’s not the same with stocks. With stocks, as a majority holder, you can make the minority an offer that everyone is forced to accept if a majority of the minority accepts it. This is why market cap is relevant to the stock market, but not e.g. the forex or commodity market.

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

#600

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

perryizgr8 wrote: post #540

leppr wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> public votes to decide the amount of money I have.

Unfortunately, there is no alternative. The value of what you have is decided by what people are willing to pay for it in markets. If people decide that they value the forked ETH that doesn't provide the money to the people who stole from the DAO more than the version where those people have all of the money, then it is going to be more valuable. You don't escape this problem with fiat either.

Basic market mechanisms like this are pretty much inescapable.