by darylyu on 4/7/21, 1:00 PM with 443 comments
by simias on 4/7/21, 1:20 PM
It goes beyond the usual issue with cryptocurrencies. Let's assume that they integrated with Bitcoin or Litecoin or some "mainstream" CC, would it still be a good idea? You can already send wallet addresses over signal if you care to do it.
I'm willing to give the Signal devs the benefit of the doubt and assume that they meant well and aren't actively trying to benefit from the move (even though I'm not completely dismissing this possibility) but at the very least it's just showcases a very strange way to lead the project and prioritize issues. I can think of a dozen things out of the top that would do more to drive Signal adoption than integrating with some "literally what?" cryptocoin.
This is going to drive the adoption of this niche cryptocoin, it's not going to do anything at all for Signal.
by tonyjstark on 4/7/21, 1:35 PM
The whole blockchain industry is just too mixed with scams that I feel comfortable to have my non-tech relatives dealing with it. It's enough that I have to educate them on 'investments' in random coins (it's gambling) and cure their FOMO regarding NFTs. Now the technology will be integrated into the messaging app that I endorsed, well-packed together with the smelly involvement of Moxie with the currency.
What now?
by thrwaway3892 on 4/7/21, 3:12 PM
I interviewed at signal a while back, and none of their recent mishaps surprise me. At first, they had me talk to Brian Acton on the phone for about an hour, who seemed to think I was already getting an offer, and he was there to sell me on it. He was cool to talk to, so I didn't mind, but I was surprised at this level of confusion for a company that small.
Next, I was given a lengthy take home project (which I was warned not to do in a language other than Java, because Moxie would reject candidates if they didn't pick a language he liked). After I finished it, they disappeared for a month.
Apparently I passed. They said I was basically the only one out of 200 people they sent it to that did pass. I assumed this meant I would be getting an offer, but they then wanted me to do a full onsite. The "onsite" weirdly consisted of another take home, but shorter, and a live interview. After not hearing back again for a while, I got an email titled: "Hello from Signal!". Great! I opened it, excited: it was a rejection.
I tried to get feedback on why I was rejected but never heard back. The best thing I can come up with: in the system design interview, as a solution to a postgres node being overloaded, I didn't come up with the solution of having a SPOF redis node with a full key scan every 10 minutes acting as an intermediate data store before transferring to postgres. I was told this is how they actually do things.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm obviously still irked by the experience, but it's all true.
by IgorPartola on 4/7/21, 1:12 PM
By comparison, Element is much more like a chat program than a phone messenger. It's good for "I want to connect with that person from GitHub" instead of "messaging the cute girl I met last night" or "messaging my grandpa". And yet, it feels to me like Matrix/Element is the platform less likely to pull something like this. Then again, Keybase seemed that way as well...
by josh2600 on 4/7/21, 3:24 PM
I am the CEO of MobileCoin.
A few points:
1) I started MobileCoin to fund Signal. That’s it. I believe that a world with a well-funded signal is a better place. In order for signal to compete in the 21st century with messaging apps around the world they need a payment story. MobileCoin is the only thing ever built that is both privacy protecting and fast that meets the standards of data retention signal requires.
2) MobileCoin Inc. intends to maintain an extreme minority of the coins once the dust settles.
3) This is designed to be used as a payment rail, which requires us getting coins in the hands of users. As you might imagine, navigating the regulatory waters of how to do that with compliance to how governments want us to behave is non-trivial. It’s important for us to move with correctness over speed.
4) this project is 4 years of my life building real technology. This is not a pump and dump scam. We have been very careful in the design, operation, and development of this system to give it the best chance at surviving in the world of cryptocurrency projects. It is non-trivial to deliver a coin that is useful for payments (the requirements are speed, privacy, low-energy footprint, and operation in resource-constrained mobile environments).
Let me put it simply, I love signal and we intentionally designed this currency to be as oblivious as possible with respect to user data so that signal could maintain their relationship with their users, one of retaining as little information as possible without compromising on the user experience. Nothing else in cryptocurrency, or payments, comes close to the level of privacy and performance that MobileCoin has achieved.
I welcome any questions I am able to answer. Note that some questions revolve around tightly regulated areas of concern and may take longer to answer as I must check with outside counsel before replying.
by Macha on 4/7/21, 1:39 PM
by cyberpunk on 4/7/21, 2:40 PM
Lets imagine, theoretically, some three letter agency in the US has forced signal to backdoor their platform somehow, and so signal stops posting source code to the clients, and everyone just keeps on using it for a year even though the authors thought that maybe this would be a big red "DANGER" signal to the users (who they're not legally allowed to inform, or shutdown the platform for any more) then how else could you try and mitigate this?
Pushing a shitcoin onto a largely tech user base may do the trick eh?
Or maybe I just put on my tinfoil hat this morning..
by mikece on 4/7/21, 1:35 PM
by marcinzm on 4/7/21, 1:14 PM
edit: Blocked at the cloudflare level without even an explanation of why if you go there.
by as1mov on 4/7/21, 2:05 PM
I am shocked.
by dexen on 4/7/21, 1:34 PM
connecting both your private communications and your private purchases to your phone number (and to each other) is exceedingly unwise. Especially as most western countries insist on connecting your phone number with government-issued ID. Anybody with technical knowledge and a modicum of appreciation for privacy should be either bitterly amused or straight up appalled.
The correct solution: decouple messaging from your offline identity (phone number etc.). Decouple transactions from offline identity and from communications - proper use of cryptocurrency is good for that.
"Every program attempts to expand until it can connect online identity with offline identity. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can." [1]
--
[1] with apologies to jwz - his original is: “Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”
by enriquto on 4/7/21, 1:11 PM
by knorker on 4/7/21, 2:52 PM
And it's not just disappointing, it's also dragging the to-the-core corrupt world of these people into Signal.
This is making Signal lose the moral high ground, making it that much easier to drag its name through the mud that is cryptocurrencies.
by KingOfCoders on 4/7/21, 1:55 PM
by dt3ft on 4/7/21, 1:19 PM
by verytrivial on 4/7/21, 1:32 PM
I remember skimming that article from 2018 before I'd switched myself and all my friends (the shame!) to Signal and counted it as a negative for that platforms reputation. I guess my honeymoon is over. On to the next chat platform!
by lovedswain on 4/7/21, 1:55 PM
by firebaze on 4/7/21, 1:35 PM
by randomsearch on 4/7/21, 2:25 PM
So how do I adjust my filter for who I trust now? Are all American organisations corrupt, not just big tech? Why would I ever support any app again if even Signal is corrupt?
by macintux on 4/7/21, 1:27 PM
by red_trumpet on 4/7/21, 1:43 PM
by KingOfCoders on 4/7/21, 1:58 PM
by ppf on 4/7/21, 2:21 PM
by zibzab on 4/7/21, 1:21 PM
Then I guess adding AI is next.
by jancsika on 4/7/21, 2:55 PM
There are numerous devs who are devoted FOSS zealots and randomly dive into the idea of using blockchain to fund their work.
Blockchain seduces hackers the same way Walmart seduced small towns to give it every incentive conceivable to move in and suck up the local economy.
"Et Tu, Signal?" simply isn't a grown-up argument. If it were, the vast majority of Hacker news would have quit adtech and already figured out fast homomorphic encryption by now.
If you want to help, figure out what social problem hackers think they are routing around with blockchain. Then explain sensible approaches to those social problems in a way hackers can understand. If Richard Stallman's endless world tour of his boring-ass one-man-play is any indication, it is possible to convince hackers of ethical arguments that have implications outside of software. But you've got your work cut out for you. (Also notice-- the least convincing part of his play comes when he tries to imply you're a bad person betraying a cause if you write proprietary software.)
Edit: clarification
by otachack on 4/7/21, 1:21 PM
Someone here mentioned Keybase, which I would have gladly donated to as a heavy user back before the Zoom buy out. They instead tried their own crypto integration, then Zoom bought them, leaving that platform in a questionable state.
I get the excitement of wanting to integrate or even create your own crypto but after the fiasco a few years ago where everyone and their parents spun a new variant it seems to have left a bad taste to most people while causing a major issue: how to get people to actually use it? Especially through a chat app where chat in itself is fragmented.
by turbinerneiter on 4/7/21, 2:13 PM
I'd happily pay a couple of bucks per month for myself and my family.
by KingOfCoders on 4/7/21, 1:54 PM
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/09/mobilecoin-a-cryptocurrenc...
by _dibly on 4/7/21, 5:08 PM
"This news really cut to heart of what many technologists have felt before when we as loyal users have been exploited and betrayed by corporations, but this time it felt much deeper because it introduced a conflict of interest from our fellow technologists that we truly believed were advancing a cause many of us also believed in. So many of us have spent significant time and social capital moving our friends and family away from the exploitative data siphon platforms that Facebook et al offer, and on to Signal in the hopes of breaking the cycle of commercial exploitation of our online relationships. And some of us feel used."
I don't understand how any of that is the fault of Signal and not the user. Don't treat the products you use like they mean anything other than the profit motive that built them. It just seems kind of naive to say "every consumer messaging app you use is terrible, come use this one instead and we'll all hope that a massive userbase doesn't inspire them to monetize their platform" when that is essentially the job of what I roughly estimate to be half of the people on HN.
I think it's whack that Signal thought this was a good idea, but I also think it's insane how many people are up in arms as if Signal was once a utility for public good and not the product that it is. They did this because they know how many people bent over backwards to get their loved ones on the platform and they know most people aren't going to get their entire extended family to switch to another messaging app because they added in GarboCoin or whatever the fuck.
by driverdan on 4/7/21, 5:00 PM
by del_operator on 4/7/21, 1:11 PM
Quid facis, Signal? Quid cogitas?
by shawnz on 4/7/21, 1:16 PM
by arsome on 4/7/21, 2:40 PM
by piokoch on 4/7/21, 2:25 PM
Nowadays it seems adding cryptocurrencies took place of fancy skins management.
by spir on 4/7/21, 1:33 PM
As usual, Stephen's correct about the 42% and so mad about it that he's missing the 58%.
Stephen's understanding of blockchain is only skin-deep. If we keep lionizing his articles by upvoting them to #1, then HN's understanding of blockchain is only going to be skin-deep, too.
Here are some of the problems with Stephen's objections to Signal's use of cryptocurrency:
- in prior essays, Stephen's majority objection to blockchain has been proof of work and the environmental impact, but the blockchain chosen by Signal is not proof of work
- Signal would love to use US dollar payments instead of a new and volatile token. But, Signal was sprinting towards private payments. On Signal's timeline, there was no technology option for the payments to be USD-denominated because the blockchain they chose is optimized for semi-centralized private payments, not decentralization or programmability, and it takes extra work to peg a token's value to USD
I find it concerning that HN looks for blockchain wisdom from, eg., Stephen and Schneier (I love Bruce), because they honestly don't know what they are talking about, and I know that because I've been full-time on ethereum for three years.
by nikolay on 4/7/21, 4:46 PM
by jerry1979 on 4/7/21, 1:49 PM
Mobilecoin has the same design principles as Signal insofar as it uses sgx enclaves to do its crypto work. While I would not want to rely on enclaves to do crypto work, it seems to fit in Signal's wheelhouse.
Also, on a speculative basis and assuming no colossal foul-ups, it appears to me that signal+mob want to distribute the mobile coins to artists and community groups. So, the marketing for mob will probably include their honest mission of having a green crypto that does good for the community.
by gnarbarian on 4/7/21, 2:39 PM
If signal is your wallet and you are sending signal coins everybody who has signal will be able to receive a payment from you without worrying about installing a wallet separately and connecting it to their account.
This is smart from a usability perspective and maybe wallet integration and other currencies will come later.
Another reason this makes sense is by controlling the cryptocurrency signal has control over the protocol to ensure it's privacy and anonymity.
by jan_Inkepa on 4/7/21, 3:46 PM
I don't understand security/crypto stuff so much, but the new version of the server seems to use the same secret token for crypto transactions as it does for backup https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/search?q=userAuth... , which offers some evidence that this be the case.
by thomasjudge on 4/7/21, 1:40 PM
by tluyben2 on 4/7/21, 1:47 PM
by alphachloride on 4/7/21, 4:45 PM
> So many of us have spent significant time and social capital moving our friends and family away from the exploitative data siphon platforms that Facebook et al offer, and on to Signal
And then he says:
> Signal users are overwhelmingly tech savvy consumers
I find it hard to believe that both of these can be true at once. If the second statement is true, then the time spent moving friends and family was wasted. If the second statement is true, people won't actually use MobileCoin currency if they are skeptical.
by brainzap on 4/7/21, 2:34 PM
by spiznnx on 4/7/21, 10:16 PM
by EGreg on 4/7/21, 3:46 PM
I would like to see the decentralized crypto space tackle payments: https://community.intercoin.org/t/signal-another-centralized...
by efnx on 4/7/21, 3:31 PM
Also - the free XLM Keybase distributed are now worth hundreds! It’s the only app that has ever paid me to use it. I have obvious complaints but I do like the app.
by roadbeats on 4/7/21, 1:54 PM
How can we expect a company to provide us what we want for free? Robots running on solar power will build them?
How about this: stop approaching a monetization problem as if it's a choice being evil vs. not evil.
by freebuju on 4/7/21, 5:25 PM
by vocatus_gate on 4/7/21, 8:32 PM
"At MobileCoin, we believe governments have a legitimate interest in regulating the economic lives of their citizens."
by ElectricMind on 4/7/21, 2:01 PM
by cratermoon on 4/7/21, 2:32 PM
by alexmingoia on 4/7/21, 4:41 PM
by everdrive on 4/7/21, 1:44 PM
by illustriousbear on 4/7/21, 2:25 PM
Afterall, private organizations can do what they want according to the mantra repeated here. At least that was the defense for social media organizations implementing censorship and bans.
by lupire on 4/7/21, 7:24 PM
If not, it's poor form to say that people shouldn't be able use something that works for them.
by gyre007 on 4/7/21, 2:41 PM
> "Adjoint digitises cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates."
by adamsvystun on 4/7/21, 2:25 PM
by darepublic on 4/7/21, 2:57 PM
by bitexploder on 4/7/21, 1:36 PM
by Hbruz0 on 4/7/21, 2:13 PM
by programmarchy on 4/7/21, 3:01 PM
What's the fundamental difference between private payments and private communication. Why support the latter but not the former?
by d23 on 4/7/21, 3:51 PM
by knocte on 4/7/21, 1:47 PM
by weeboid on 4/7/21, 2:37 PM
by intrasight on 4/7/21, 2:56 PM
by qrbLPHiKpiux on 4/7/21, 2:10 PM
Services should be paid for. If signal were what you want, exactly, why not pay an app fee or a small yearly fee?
by niij on 4/7/21, 1:12 PM
"Signal announces cryptocurrency: opinion"
by jeromenerf on 4/7/21, 1:28 PM
Expecting it to achieve world domination for journalists and grandmas alike is just misplaced expectations.
by throwaway12757 on 4/7/21, 1:47 PM
by ex3ndr on 4/7/21, 1:12 PM
Unlike Signal, sigh.
by nathias on 4/7/21, 1:25 PM
by AzzieElbab on 4/7/21, 1:40 PM
by alfiedotwtf on 4/7/21, 2:29 PM
Digital currency is just digital communications. Signal allows us to communicate privately. Should people care whether or not this communication is a message that a language we also speak, or a message that contains a digital transaction.
Again...
> trusted de facto platform for private messaging that empowers dissidents, journalists and grandma all to communicate freely
If you care about the privacy of Signal users to communicate freely about anything they chose, don't also hate when these same Signal users want to communicate digital currencies.
... and before you downvote, let me know why I'm wrong (although, they should have chosen a more mainstream privacy coin like ZCash or Monero at least).
by sneak on 4/7/21, 1:16 PM
Yet it insists on it being a pump and dump scam, without evidence. :(
by siwatanejo on 4/7/21, 1:20 PM
Signal did a bad move here, but they will learn their mistake eventually: once they remove shitcoin support and add bitcoin support.
by IG_Semmelweiss on 4/7/21, 2:18 PM
Here we have an nonprofit app that has succesfully broken into a major consumer market, and because of their ambitions to break up another cartel, and this is bad ?
Lets take a stab at understanding the authors complaints.
Author states users are smart and "we make the majority of users". Going beyond the entitlement of that statement, author can feel betrayed, but for signal to succeed it needs to keep iterating and address the consumer market.
Author may not need fast/cheap payments. But what about the rest of the world including the underbanked?
Author may fret about asymetry of info around transactions. However, will author think about the users of cash app and the million others that democratized stock trading ? Users have spoken and they prefer something, over nothing.
The article is unfortunately reeking of elitism. Sour grapes because a 3rd party will make money off an excellent application. I say keep an open mind.
This is the best thing that could happen to the world. Someone has the guts to finally take on currency, and has the potential to succeed. Yes it not perfect. Yes some will make money and signal may be able cover for their forever loan. Thats good.
The project has been a great endeavor since the days of redphone / textsecure. Project is still open sourced and nonprofit.
Signal is the future of privacy and security of the masses. As recently as 2019 that was still not clear.
Its time to cheer, not to dump.
by throwaway823882 on 4/7/21, 1:32 PM
It can be painful when a belief system runs into reality.
"Just do one thing and do it well, be the trusted de facto platform for private messaging that empowers dissidents, journalists and grandma all to communicate freely with the same guarantees of privacy. Don’t become a dodgy money transmitter business."
Lol. Because that usually goes over well. Hey, just do what we tell you! We don't care what's involved, just get it done! Says the user of the free service.