←back to thread

544 points josh2600 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cdogl ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
sequoia ◴[] No.26720662[source]
> This kind of anti-feature is not what I signed up for.

At the risk of sounding like a Signal simp: don’t use this feature if you’d don’t like it? I have no idea whether this is a good or bad idea, I figure the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and I haven’t had a chance to try the signal payments feature, but I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here at least as far as “I’ll withhold judgement til I can try it for myself.”

I really don’t get the ire on this. I think it’s good that whisper systems is forward looking and trying to be innovative and dynamic and go where users are rather than just sit around waiting to become irrelevant. Not all experiments or risks will pay off but that doesn’t mean risks and bets are bad.

replies(2): >>26720771 #>>26721651 #
fauigerzigerk ◴[] No.26721651[source]
>don’t use this feature if you’d don’t like it?

How do I prove that I didn't use it? And why on earth would I want a messaging app to put a target like that on my back if I'm not even using the feature? With this feature, the likelihood of someone demanding access to the app grows from almost zero to pretty significant.

replies(1): >>26724816 #
1. sequoia ◴[] No.26724816{3}[source]
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.