←back to thread

544 points josh2600 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
RL_Quine ◴[] No.26714582[source]
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.

replies(7): >>26714678 #>>26714732 #>>26714836 #>>26714899 #>>26715286 #>>26715768 #>>26716324 #
TheCraiggers ◴[] No.26714678[source]
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.

And frankly, if this means I can send money to a friend without Google getting yet more data about me, then even better.

replies(3): >>26714728 #>>26714894 #>>26722563 #
candiddevmike ◴[] No.26714894[source]
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.

replies(1): >>26715504 #
TheCraiggers ◴[] No.26715504[source]
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.

replies(1): >>26715628 #
1. candiddevmike ◴[] No.26715628{3}[source]
> 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.