←back to thread

It looks like Signal isn't as open source as you thought it was anymore

(www.androidpolice.com)
242 points raybb | 10 comments | 06 Apr 21 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.688s | source | bottom
Show context
bilal4hmed ◴[06 Apr 21 19:29 UTC] No.26716299[source]▶
It looks like they had been working on adding MobileCoin support server side https://signal.org/blog/help-us-test-payments-in-signal/ .

Just a few minutes ago the server code was updated. Im honestly not happy about this. Feels yucky

replies(3): >>26716409 #>>26716499 #>>26716912 #
kryogen1c ◴[06 Apr 21 20:22 UTC] No.26716912[source]▶
im a little confused what the argument is here. TFA is implying a bunch of server code is being updated without telling anyone, violating their open-source stance. then they release a post, possibly in response to criticism, saying they've been working on a major feature thats ready for its beta release. so now youre arguing the feature they chose to work on feels yucky? this is textbook goalpost moving.

i use signal and my impression of moxie is extremely positive. at face value, a payment system built by moxie and the signal team with cryptocurrency screams "incredible". kind of taken aback by the overwhelming negativity around here.

replies(1): >>26716963 #
1. bilal4hmed ◴[06 Apr 21 20:26 UTC] No.26716963[source]▶
I would agree if the post by Signal would say "Hey, we know the server code hasnt been updated in a while, yall have been asking, so here is the updated source and this is the reason why. We have working to incorporate MobileCoin yada yada"

People have been asking about the server code for a while, with zero response or even acknowledgement.

No explanation why, no apology.... just boom, new crypto support in our server. Trust us its cool.

They knew this would be a bad look from the get go , to they did it in secret.

replies(2): >>26717071 #>>26717138 #
2. pydry ◴[06 Apr 21 20:35 UTC] No.26717071[source]▶
They might be wanting to get the jump on the competition.
3. Klonoar ◴[06 Apr 21 20:41 UTC] No.26717138[source]▶
I mean, for what it's worth, the MobileCoin bits weren't truly secret - that "turmoil in Signal" article that made the rounds a few months ago explicitly made mention of this, and the recent MOB runup in the past few weeks had rumors of this flying around.
replies(3): >>26718096 #>>26719016 #>>26721246 #
4. codethief ◴[06 Apr 21 22:21 UTC] No.26718096[source]▶
AFAIR there was even a discussion here on HN a few years ago that Moxie had started collaborating with MobileCoin. No news, really.
replies(1): >>26718331 #
5. pseudalopex ◴[06 Apr 21 22:45 UTC] No.26718331{3}[source]▶
News to most people.
replies(1): >>26718488 #
6. codethief ◴[06 Apr 21 23:07 UTC] No.26718488{4}[source]▶
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935583

https://www.wired.com/story/mobilecoin-cryptocurrency/

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/24/mobilecoin-moxie-marlinspi...

replies(1): >>26719033 #
7. pseudalopex ◴[07 Apr 21 00:17 UTC] No.26719016[source]▶
Leaks don't change the fact they tried to keep it a secret. The article was published 9 months after they stopped releasing server source. And Marlinspike dismissed the MobileCoin work as "design explorations".[1]

[1] https://www.platformer.news/p/-the-battle-inside-signal

8. pseudalopex ◴[07 Apr 21 00:19 UTC] No.26719033{5}[source]▶
What percent of Signal users do you think read either of those articles?
replies(1): >>26720347 #
9. pseudalopex ◴[07 Apr 21 03:39 UTC] No.26720347{6}[source]▶
And Marlinspike advising MobileCoin isn't the same as Signal developers actually integrating it.
10. ymolodtsov ◴[07 Apr 21 06:49 UTC] No.26721246[source]▶
That's by definition a scoop and not a piece of communications from Signal itself.