←back to thread

Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

(www.wired.com)
544 points josh2600 | 5 comments | 06 Apr 21 16:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
cdogl ◴[06 Apr 21 23:13 UTC] No.26718524[source]▶
Long-time Signal user here, with a number of technical and non-technical friends, colleagues and acquaintances who also use it. I don't know who was asking for this. And I think it really dilutes Signal's message.

I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to secure, private communication. Some people may hold the same belief for the right to transfer funds. I don't agree and I suspect many others feel the same. That tension alone makes this look like a bad decision to me.

replies(7): >>26718703 #>>26718805 #>>26719043 #>>26719103 #>>26719202 #>>26720779 #>>26726663 #
JeremyNT ◴[07 Apr 21 00:21 UTC] No.26719043[source]▶
This kind of anti-feature is not what I signed up for. I just wanted a secure messenger normal users could understand! It seems like a simple enough problem that Signal solved well (apart from the phone number requirement).

Sadly, now it feels like Signal was just a long game trojan for Marlinspike to onboard users to a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme. This has nothing to do with its core functionality and it makes me question the developers' motives.

I've wasted my influence with my non-technical friends convincing them to adopt Signal, and I don't forsee convincing them to switch yet again to something different.

The state of secure messaging is really bleak. I wish Matrix had an IM-style client that was decent enough for non-technical users to adopt.

replies(4): >>26719195 #>>26719289 #>>26720457 #>>26720662 #
1. jakecopp ◴[07 Apr 21 04:01 UTC] No.26720457[source]▶
> The state of secure messaging is really bleak. I wish Matrix had an IM-style client that was decent enough for non-technical users to adopt.

See Element [1] which uses Matrix [2]. It feels like IM, and is super simple to onboard new users. I'm not involved with it, but I'm a huge fan of the Matrix ecosystem.

If you want group chats to be mixed in with 1-1 chats, try SchildiChat [3], a fork of Element.

[1]: https://element.io/

[2]: https://matrix.org/

[3]: https://schildi.chat/

replies(2): >>26720956 #>>26725258 #
2. mtsr ◴[07 Apr 21 05:44 UTC] No.26720956[source]▶
Even with a fast home server Element is quite slow. Slow enough that even I, trying to get my circle to use it, feel some reluctance to open the app. Hopefully the upcoming Hydrogen client can solve this.
replies(1): >>26721318 #
3. ptman ◴[07 Apr 21 07:03 UTC] No.26721318[source]▶
element-web? element-android? element-ios? all of them?

Have you tried fluffychat on android? Or any of the other clients https://matrix.org/clients-matrix

replies(1): >>26721515 #
4. remirk ◴[07 Apr 21 07:37 UTC] No.26721515{3}[source]▶
I love FluffyChat. Been using it for a month now and it's significantly faster than Element/SchildiChat on Android. It has the basic chat features I would expect from a Matrix application. Only feature I don't think it has crosssigning at the moment. (In which you're signing your friends master-key, which they use to sign their new devices, so you don't have to have a cryptoparty anytime a friend adds a new device)
5. JeremyNT ◴[07 Apr 21 14:14 UTC] No.26725258[source]▶
I occasionally use Element on my Android device, waiting for it to get to the point where I can seriously recommend it as an alternative to silos like Signal or Telegram. It's sadly not at that point.

Fundamentally, Element "feels" more like an IRC client than a typical IM client like Signal. It isn't focused on direct, one-off, or small group communications (this isn't a technical thing and it has nothing to do with federation, it's simply the UX paradigm that Element has adopted).

The SchildiChat fork looks promising, although it's clearly too early to recommend it. It's not even available on the Google Play store, which makes it unsuitable for non-technical users.