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

61–70 of 665 posts

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

#61

Post by mikeyla85 »

centimeter wrote: post #40
RL_Quine wrote: post #12

This is garbage, and shouldn't be part of Signal. Everything on the internet is being corrupted with adding cryptocurrency scams where they absolutely don't belong, it turns Signal from an obvious recommendation into something that makes me hesitate. There's something to be said for focusing on doing one thing well, and that doesn't mean turning a communication platform into a kitchen sink.

If they weren't using this as an opportunity to pump some shitcoin, this might make sense. Bitcoin Lightning integration would be much less suspect, for example, because A) it's already well established B) they're not going to make a quick buck off it.

Lightning doesn't have privacy and Signal needs privacy.

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

#62

Post by RL_Quine »

kf wrote: post #53
RL_Quine wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal needs to be reliable, safe and have a low barrier of entry to achieve its goals of allowing widespread private communication. I thought that when I recommended that my peer group use it (at this point, all of my normal contacts use it extensively), I could trust that it would remain clearly focused on its mission- now I'll need to recommend it with a caveat to just click through the scam marketing, ICO offers…

You’re being really cynical in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. This doesn’t entail scam marketing, ICO offers, and airdrops just because that’s something that happens in a lot of the rest of cryptocurrency space.

You missed the point. Even if Signal doesn't do the typical cryptocurrency scam behaviour, I now somehow need to try to explain to people why it is different to every other thing in the space that does act like that. On the face of it, if we assume that the inclusion of MobileCoin in Signal is completely benign, it's something that's never happened before.

Smoking causes cancer, but smoking these specific cigarettes won't. Do you see the problem with trying to describe such an absurd situation to somebody?

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

#64

Post by alexmingoia »

hhjj wrote: post #60
edsimpson wrote: post #5

MobileCoin looks fantastic! Seems to solve the major pain points of Bitcoin: fast transactions, low transaction fees, private and no massive environmental impact with mining. Any ETA on when this will come to the USA?

Looks like it depends on SGX, so basically delegates trust to Intel. Bitcoin doesn't depend on trusting anyone.

You have to put the keys somewhere.

Storing keys in SGX and using attestation to ensure only valid nodes access them is significantly more secure than not using the SGX.

Using SGX gives a Signal user’s phone the same level of security as using a hardware wallet like Ledger Nano.

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

#65

Post by RL_Quine »

RL_Quine wrote: post #46
devwastaken wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they didn't use some random 'coin' no one has heard of I'd be on board. They're trying to compete in a bad way. They should simply just use Stripe and be done with it. People want an alternative to facebook messaging and PayPal. They don't want superfluous cryptos.

Moxie Marlinspike is listed as an advisor of MobileCoin, so there's some obvious financial connections between the two.

"Moxie, as an individual, is a paid technical advisor to MobileCoin"

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

#67

Post by fourstar »

josh2600 wrote: post #57
RL_Quine wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moxie Marlinspike is listed as an advisor for MobileCoin, was this not a paid position?

Moxie != Signal. Moxie, as an individual, is a paid technical advisor to MobileCoin but the reality is that we could never pay Moxie what his time is worth. I am thankful that he has chosen to help make this project a reality.

>Moxie creates Signal

>Moxie advises MobileCoin

>MobileCoin gets integrated into Signal

Hm, yes, must just be one large coincidence that this "integration" happened.

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

#68

Post by ivoras »

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 airdrop everyone a 100 pieces of whatever coin (or even just 1, assuming the coin can be subdivided into tiny bits)? I'm asking because I believe the value of this kind of coin usage will come from its daily users, not from exchanges, but that's a long game. Even if today it's worth 0, if the UX is good enough and it proves to be secure, people will start assigning value to it.

- Why pick a cryptocurrency almost noone has heard of? For example, related to the above question, why not buy or mine a million Doge and gift every account a 1 doge (presented as 1 thousand mili-doge)? People will start assigning (more) value to it sooner or later if it's easy to use. Feel free to substitute almost whatever instead of Doges (maybe something with PoS and give the users the warm fuzzies with apparent increase in value).

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

#69

Post by RL_Quine »

josh2600 wrote: post #50
RL_Quine wrote: post #12

This is garbage, and shouldn't be part of Signal. Everything on the internet is being corrupted with adding cryptocurrency scams where they absolutely don't belong, it turns Signal from an obvious recommendation into something that makes me hesitate. There's something to be said for focusing on doing one thing well, and that doesn't mean turning a communication platform into a kitchen sink.

Hi, Before you label MobileCoin a scam, I would encourage you to take a look at the Github. I think you'll see that we've made a lot of very carefully considered choices on how to deliver a great payments experience without many of the compromises other cryptocurrencies have chosen. Of note, the speed of transactions, much greener energy design, privacy-protections, and mobile-first UX are differentiators. Many crypt…

> Signal chose MobileCoin because nothing else met their performance and privacy standards.

Signal has obvious financial connections to MobileCoin, something that frankly nobody else has ever heard of before today. I find it really difficult to believe that MobileCoin paying Moxie (which you've acknowledged), and Signal/Moxie happening to choose MobileCoin for inclusion in Signal when nobody wanted it was a coincidence. It's insulting to the intelligence of the reader to even make that claim.

> Before you label MobileCoin a scam, I would encourage you to take a look at the Github.

What would that tell me?

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

#70

Post by fourstar »

josh2600 wrote: post #54
crazypython wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Stellar Consensus prevent double-spends? Imagine I have a private key to an address with 10 coins. Imagine I spend the same amount of money (10 coins) on Mars and Earth at the same time. There is a 10-lightminute gap between Mars and Earth. Assume Mars and Earth have a similar number of Stellar nodes. What happens in Stellar Consensus?

Stellar actually does nothing to prevent double-spends as it is the consensus layer and not the ledger. The ledger prevents double spends in mobilecoin by using a proof called a "key image" which is part of CryptoNote ( https://bytecoin.org/old/whitepaper.pdf ). Essentially, a ring signature is produced by the user which says "one of these N transactions belong to me" and the key image proves that one of the members…

So essentially, this is a mashup between XMR (ring sigs) and XLM (consensus protocol)? Why not use zk-proofs?
Post reply on HN