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

91–100 of 665 posts

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

#91

Post by lrvick »

ncmncm wrote: post #80
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.

Agree. It would be OK to make Signal able to integrate payment systems and make this thing compatible with that or with any other comm that implements the interface. Tying them together is pernicious. Anyway Signal is itself pernicious by being tied to a phone number and to Google Play services, and by being very choosy about who gets ports. I had high hopes for Matrix, once they got E2EE, but they have flubbed that…

Have you seen matrix p2p?

Also anyone can run their own servers, and Dendrite can run on very modest hardware like a Raspi.

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

#92

Post by lrvick »

RL_Quine wrote: post #88
ncmncm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. It would be OK to make Signal able to integrate payment systems and make this thing compatible with that or with any other comm that implements the interface. Tying them together is pernicious. Anyway Signal is itself pernicious by being tied to a phone number and to Google Play services, and by being very choosy about who gets ports. I had high hopes for Matrix, once they got E2EE, but they have flubbed that…

Mastodon, Matrix and others suffer that issue greatly. You can't really run single-user instances without running a gigantic installation, when a minimal implementation of their protocols should have no footprint to speak of.

Dendrite is that minimal implementation to make single user instances cheap.

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

#93

Post by fooqux »

candiddevmike wrote: post #48
fooqux wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal is competing against some big players in the messaging space, at least some of which have money transfers. As long as they abide by their principles and none of these features impact privacy, I don't see how it wouldn't be viewed as a win. A case could be made for it being bloat, but most consumers don't care, and for Signal (or any messaging app) to be successful, it needs to appeal to the common denominator.…

If you're that concerned about third party processors, most banks and credit unions provide their customers a way to send money between people fairly simply. Signal providing this functionality is scope creep.

Scope creep? Perhaps. But then so are voice calls, video calls, sending pictures, GIFs, etc. None of those things are core to the experience of sending "lol" to a friend. Despite the very correct statement that there already exist services which do those things.

Yet, those features have almost become synonymous with messaging apps. The market and consumers seem to want these services combined, so here we are. My point was that sending money is a feature that more and more messaging services have. Hangouts (or whatever the hell it is called these days), Whatsapp, Telegram, etc.

Personally, I would have liked it more if this wasn't tied to some no-name cryptocurrency, but oh well.

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

#94

Post by lrvick »

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.

Signal is entirely centralized and Moxie runs the organization.

For all intents and purposes Moxie is 100% in control of the Signal network and could shut it down or release a malicious update that plaintexts messages at any time.

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

#95

Post by lrvick »

josh2600 wrote: post #52
otoburb wrote: post #38

Congratulations on the announcement. >> Those outputs contain the entire original supply of MobileCoin (250 million MOB) [1] Is the entire supply of 250M MOB available for sale on FTX, or is only a restricted number of MOB tokens available for sale to UK residents? Is it fair to assume that the MobileCoin Foundation has no plans for an airdrop (unlike Stellar)? [1] "Mechanics of MobileCoin", v0.0.39, pg. 133

A majority of the supply of MobileCoins is available for purchase at https://www.buymobilecoin.com . We have many plans for how to help users get coins but none that we are prepared to disclose today beyond the aforementioned website.

Down

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

#96

Post by alexmingoia »

orph wrote: post #87
alexmingoia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Keys are not stored in SGX. Keys never leave the phone.

Can you provide more detail?

”Running MobileCoin in an SGX enclave allows nodes to securely manage keys for users. A client can perform remote attestation to its MobileCoin node before transmitting its keys into the remote enclave along with a short recovery PIN. The MobileCoin node can then rate limit authenticated access to the keys, while the enclave prevents the node operator or anyone who compromises the node from circumventing the software and attempting to brute force access to the keys directly. In this way, user keys can reside safely in a node and survive across application reinstalls or lost devices, without having to trust the node operator or the security of the node computer, and without having to memorize or safely store extremely long recovery passphrases.”

https://mixin.one/assets/MobileCoin-Whitepaper-EN_FINAL.pdf

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

#97

Post by rvz »

So when Keybase added Stellar support for payments, this was met with lots of hostility and disappointment, such as 'cryptocoin bullshit' [0] or 'Yeah, I am not going to use any product associated with anything cryptocurrency. Just smells bad. [1]

Now the same thing has happened on Signal; HN's favourite messaging app. So why is this met with warm welcoming arms especially when they are also going into cryptocurrencies?

Maybe the HN sentiment back then was filled with those who missed the crypto bull-run of late 2017 and the same ones have missed it again last year.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16545092

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16546963

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

#98

Post by lrvick »

fastball wrote: post #32
vitno wrote: post #20

I am incredibly disappointed in the Signal team. I don't want cryptocurrencies (or even any payments!) in my primary text app. Crypto/blockchain is fine, but if I want to use it I'll download a different app. I'm finding this announcement creates some uncertainty in my head about Signal's long-term future.

How did you want Signal to monetize?

Maybe like Matrix did?

Sell turn key servers for people that lack the time or interest to run their own.

Federated and ethical.

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

#99

Post by bdcs »

RL_Quine wrote: post #69
josh2600 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coinciden…

"Marlinspike notes, however, that neither he nor Signal own any MobileCoins." https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messa...

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

#100

Post by candiddevmike »

fooqux wrote: post #93
candiddevmike wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're that concerned about third party processors, most banks and credit unions provide their customers a way to send money between people fairly simply. Signal providing this functionality is scope creep.

Scope creep? Perhaps. But then so are voice calls, video calls, sending pictures, GIFs, etc. None of those things are core to the experience of sending "lol" to a friend. Despite the very correct statement that there already exist services which do those things. Yet, those features have almost become synonymous with messaging apps. The market and consumers seem to want these services combined, so here we are. My poin…

> Scope creep? Perhaps. But then so are voice calls, video calls, sending pictures, GIFs, etc. None of those things are core to the experience of sending "lol" to a friend. Despite the very correct statement that there already exist services which do those things.

I think those would all be considered in scope for a chat platform--theyre all various ways to share and communicate.

Post reply on HN