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

71–80 of 459 posts

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#71

Post by tonyjstark »

spir wrote: post #52

EDIT: I fixed my ad hominem by adding detail As usual, Stephen's correct about the 42% and so mad about it that he's missing the 58%. Stephen's understanding of blockchain is only skin-deep. If we keep lionizing his articles by upvoting them to #1, then HN's understanding of blockchain is only going to be skin-deep, too. Here are some of the problems with Stephen's objections to Signal's use of cryptocurrency: - in p…

this reads more like an ad-hominem. So what's your counter argument, what did he get wrong? The conflict of interest is already a big no-no...

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#72

Post by medstrom »

simias wrote: post #28
niij wrote: post #5

Dang: could the title be changed to something more informative? "Signal announces cryptocurrency: opinion"

I thought the title was a pretty good hint as to the content of the article, assuming that you're familiar with the reference to "et tu Brute": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu,_Brute%3F

"Et tu" implies betrayal, but doesn't specify how.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#73

Post by Macha »

Every time Matrix is brought up here, the federation and open spec is criticised as being too slow moving compared to Signal's BDFL approach. Well, this is what happens when the interests of the BDFL and community diverge. If New Vector decided to fuck up Element on the other hand, you could just move to a new client and not deal with marketing a network move to your social network.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#76

Post by spir »

tonyjstark wrote: post #71
spir wrote: post #52

EDIT: I fixed my ad hominem by adding detail As usual, Stephen's correct about the 42% and so mad about it that he's missing the 58%. Stephen's understanding of blockchain is only skin-deep. If we keep lionizing his articles by upvoting them to #1, then HN's understanding of blockchain is only going to be skin-deep, too. Here are some of the problems with Stephen's objections to Signal's use of cryptocurrency: - in p…

this reads more like an ad-hominem. So what's your counter argument, what did he get wrong? The conflict of interest is already a big no-no...

That's fair. Updating my original comment

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#77

Post by verytrivial »

petard wrote: post #33

I'm baffled how tech-savvy people like the author are surprised when a seemingly free product suddenly introduce ways to monetize its service. There is no free lunch or to put it in another way, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.

Let me try to de-baffle you -- it is the shitcoin-oh-god-yet-another-ICO aspect, not the monetize-aspect which is causing friction.

If Signal switched to a 'Lite' vs 'Pro' model, or other incremental features, or had more donation related nagging, I doubt it would raise the slightest bother.

Many people switched from other messaging apps on princple, much of that signalled (pun intended) by actions of the founders. This moves seems to be incompatible with many people's principles.

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#78

Post by red_trumpet »

I see Keybase mentioned a lot in this discussions (both in the linked article, and in HN comments). Does anyone have a good summary to read up on what happened with Keybase?

Re: Et Tu, Signal?

#79

Post by nlitened »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #68
simias wrote: post #20

I definitely agree with the article that it felt a bit like a betrayal. I've pushed some friends and family to use it over Telegram despite significant usability issue, and now I see that instead of implementing some IMO basic features like proper message sync and easy backup when you get a new phone, they prefer to implement a... micropayment system? Based on some niche altcoin which doesn't even exist on mainstream…

Proper message sync is hardly possible with end-to-end encryption everyone so excited about (without fully understanding the implications of true secrecy). If you have e2ee and then sync messages via google drive (looking at you, Viber), you are kinda missing the point.

I remember that Skype, before it was bought and ruined by Microsoft, had P2P chat history sync that worked the following way: once two of your devices were online at the same time, they synchronized chat history among the two running instances flawlessly. It was super reliable and predictable.

I am sure that Signal could implement the same peer-to-peer sync scheme with full end-to-end encryption without any secrecy compromises.

Post reply on HN