[HN Gopher] Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focuse... ___________________________________________________________________ Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency Author : josh2600 Score : 166 points Date : 2021-04-06 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wired.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com) | gojomo wrote: | Wow, a cryptocurrency that's _also_ dependent on Intel(tm) | SGX(r)! | | What wonders will Intel's Signal subdivision offer next? | ivoras wrote: | Well, if any cryptocurrency is to gain really wide adoption, this | is the way to go: integrate it into something a large number of | people already use. And judging by what WeChat does, a chat | client is an excellent choice - after all, money sending is a way | of communicating something (an abstract form of "value" in this | case). | | I only wish it were done differently - maybe we'll get answers to | these questions: | | - Why not airdrop everyone a 100 pieces of whatever coin (or even | just 1, assuming the coin can be subdivided into tiny bits)? I'm | asking because I believe the value of this kind of coin usage | will come from its daily users, not from exchanges, but that's a | long game. Even if today it's worth 0, if the UX is good enough | and it proves to be secure, people will start assigning value to | it. | | - Why pick a cryptocurrency almost noone has heard of? For | example, related to the above question, why not buy or mine a | million Doge and gift every account a 1 doge (presented as 1 | thousand mili-doge)? People will start assigning (more) value to | it sooner or later if it's easy to use. Feel free to substitute | almost whatever instead of Doges (maybe something with PoS and | give the users the warm fuzzies with apparent increase in value). | ZoomZoomZoom wrote: | Again, Signal shows there's some undercurrents going on | constantly in the organization and bringing private and ethical | messaging solution to the public is not the sole goal. Another | affirmation for those who kept on recommending Matrix/GNU | Jami/XMPP instead. | | At this point, if you really need this broad functionality Signal | are aiming to provide, why not Status.im? At least their tech is | cool. | abstractbarista wrote: | The proper choice would have been Monero. | bluefox wrote: | So Signal is now a payments app? Really? Installed Element and | will be phasing Signal out of my life. | josh2600 wrote: | Hi! | | I'm the CEO of MobileCoin. If anyone has any questions please | feel free to ask here. We've been working on this project for | four years and it has been a labor of love. There's a lot of new | technology here. | | We exist in a highly regulated space so it's possible some | questions will require reaching out to lawyers to make sure we | answer them in a way that's compliant so please don't feel | offended if a response takes a while to come back. | | The best set of docs for how the whole thing fits together is our | book "The Mechanics of MobileCoin"[0]. | | We'll be around here and on our forums [1] to answer questions. | Please also check out our foundation website[2]. The github[3] is | also a lot of fun, especially the section on Fog[4]. | | [0]https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of- | MobileCoin/blob/maste... | | [1]https://community.mobilecoin.foundation | | [2]https://mobilecoin.foundation | | [3]https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/mobilecoin | | [4]https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/fog | bdcs wrote: | The Oblivious RAM implementation is incredible | fblp wrote: | Hi Josh, thank you for taking questions. Can you speak to the | financial distribution of coins/funds for the employees and | foundation? | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Assuming an attacker fully compromises SGX for machines under | his physical control (e.g. can execute arbitrary code inside an | attested enclave), what can the attacker do/what security | properties of MobileCoin break? | | I know Moxie seems to put near-complete trust in SGX, but many | security professionals don't. | Forbo wrote: | I tried going to https://buymobilecoin.com/ as referenced in | https://www.mobilecoin.com/terms-of-sale.html but get a | Cloudflare "Error 1020" page. What's up with that? | josh2600 wrote: | This occurs when you try to access it from a US-IP. | deftnerd wrote: | Cloudflare lets you create custom error pages [1]. I would | recommend making one for any geo-restricted pages. The | benefit is that you can emulate your site theme and have an | opportunity to explain the reasoning for the geographic | restrictions. | | [1] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- | us/articles/200172706-C... | codethief wrote: | Hi Josh, thanks for taking the time! | | My question, to both you and (especially) Moxie: Why do you | trust Intel SGX so much (for Signal but now also MobileCoin)? | Why are you not worried about vulnerabilities? As you're surely | aware, even Matt Green who is/used to be(?) the biggest fan of | Signal[0] is very concerned[1] about SGX. I don't question your | intentions but the fact that Signal as an organization has | stayed completely silent about this is... worrisome and at the | very least taints your reputation of openness and | trustworthiness. With MobileCoin now relying on it, too (more | or less), this only seems to be getting worse. | | [0]: | http://web.archive.org/web/20200201112751/https://signal.org... | | [1]: https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2020/07/10/a-few- | th... | mbesto wrote: | Why does a decentralized communication system need a defi based | payment system that has the requirement of a CEO to run it? | josh2600 wrote: | I don't run anything related to the protocol. The protocol | governed by the MobileCoin Foundation, an independent board | of directors. The foundation makes recommendations about how | the network might behave, but ultimately it's up to the node | operators to decide what code they run. | mbesto wrote: | So what organization are you the CEO of? Is it a for-profit | entity? What is that entities relation to the protocol? | hiq wrote: | Hi, I still have to read the docs more thoroughly, but given | that these HN threads die out quickly, I'd rather ask now that | I have the chance, so forgive me if some of these are answered | in the docs: | | 1. how does MobileCoin make money? | | 2. how many coins do you / does MobileCoin own? | | 3. related to that, are there mechanisms in place to prove that | this is not a pump and dump? Or simply, how do I know it's not | one and it's here for the long-term? | | 4. what's the threat model of the blockchain you're using? E.g. | for Bitcoin, the chain is compromised once 51% of the hashing | rate belongs to collaborative evil miners (as a rough | approximation). What about MobileCoin? When would something bad | happen? How is it prevented? | | 5. how does MobileCoin compare with privacy-oriented | cryptocurrencies such as Monero? | | P.S.: you might wanna add a F.A.Q. section somewhere for the | questions I've mentioned and the others in this HN thread, | right now we either have to blindly trust the claims on | https://www.mobilecoin.com/ or going through the 133 pages of | https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of-MobileCoin, there should | be some intermediate tech documentation (or does it exist | already?) | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > 1. how does MobileCoin make money? | | MobileCoin pre-mined the coins and is selling them to users. | According to other comments, they hold 85% of the coins. | | The CEO is commenting in this thread with a link to buy the | coins. They make money by selling these coins. | qqii wrote: | Thanks for answering questions, it's nice to see that | MobileCoin shares so many similarities with Monero with changes | that seems to make decent tradeoffs for usability. I have a few | questions: | | What is the identity and distribution behind the current | mobilecoin nodes? What are the requirements for running a node? | Since there is no node rewards how will nodes funded in the | long term (10+ years)? | | Does mobilecoin employ something similar to Dandelion++? What | prevents nodes or those running fog from performing timing | based attacks? Is mobilecoin suseptable to any other attacks | (e.g. Poisoned output, subaddress association)? | | How will the mobilecoin foundation and continued development be | funded in the long term (10+ years)? | | If SGX is found to be vulnerable/no longer fit for purpose is | there a mitigation plan? | CynicusRex wrote: | Can late MobileCoin adopters buy the same amount of coin for | the same price as early adopters or is it a multi-level | marketing pyramid scheme like the rest of the crypto"currency" | greed and spam inducing cesspool? | | https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html | troquerre wrote: | MobileCoin is already liquid on multiple exchanges so the | coins would just be purchased at whatever the market price | is. It also doesn't make sense for late adopters to get the | same price because there's a lot more risk associated with | being an early adopter than a late adopter. This works both | ways -- if something bad happens to MobileCoin that tanks the | price late adopters would be able to buy at a cheaper price | because the new information gets priced in. | CynicusRex wrote: | >"It also doesn't make sense for late adopters to get the | same price because there's a lot more risk associated with | being an early adopter than a late adopter." | | Often repeated but false. Early adopters mine or buy large | proportions at negligible prices while late adopters mine | or buy negligible proportions at large prices. | gsich wrote: | There is no guarantee that there will be late adopters. | So yes, there is risk. | femiagbabiaka wrote: | Random fact I found interesting: The Long Now Foundation is one | of the featured funders behind MobileCoin. | edsimpson wrote: | MobileCoin looks fantastic! Seems to solve the major pain points | of Bitcoin: fast transactions, low transaction fees, private and | no massive environmental impact with mining. Any ETA on when this | will come to the USA? | hhjj wrote: | Looks like it depends on SGX, so basically delegates trust to | Intel. Bitcoin doesn't depend on trusting anyone. | crystaln wrote: | SGX is only used for an extra layer of privacy, beyond what | any other currency offers. SGX is not used for the security | of the currency. This criticism has been answered countless | times. | sudosysgen wrote: | Many cryptos offer forward secrecy and completely opaque | ledgers without any reliance on SGX. | hhjj wrote: | Why does the FAQ 2. say i have to run consensus-service | with intel SGX to participate with other validation nodes ? | Doesn't that imply the consensus is dependent on SGX ? | alexmingoia wrote: | You have to put the keys _somewhere_. | | Storing keys in SGX and using attestation to ensure only | valid nodes access them is significantly more secure than not | using the SGX. | | Using SGX gives a Signal user's phone the same level of | security as using a hardware wallet like Ledger Nano. | orph wrote: | Keys are not stored in SGX. Keys never leave the phone. | alexmingoia wrote: | Can you provide more detail? | | _"Running MobileCoin in an SGX enclave allows nodes to | securely manage keys for users. A client can perform | remote attestation to its MobileCoin node before | transmitting its keys into the remote enclave along with | a short recovery PIN. The MobileCoin node can then rate | limit authenticated access to the keys, while the enclave | prevents the node operator or anyone who compromises the | node from circumventing the software and attempting to | brute force access to the keys directly. In this way, | user keys can reside safely in a node and survive across | application reinstalls or lost devices, without having to | trust the node operator or the security of the node | computer, and without having to memorize or safely store | extremely long recovery passphrases."_ | | https://mixin.one/assets/MobileCoin-Whitepaper- | EN_FINAL.pdf | [deleted] | orph wrote: | See #5 for more details: | https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/mobilecoin#faq | | > 5. Will I need to put my keys on a remote server to | scan the blockchain for incoming transactions? | | > Keys will never leave your mobile device. This is a | challenging problem and we are very excited to share our | solution when we release our mobile SDK software. | bigiain wrote: | Ahh, right. Nice. So keys never leave the phone due to | magical hand waving. Got it. | maclured wrote: | MobileCoin isn't the only fast privacy coin in town - particl | has most of the same features if not more, including a private | ebay-style marketplace which should be ready for prime time in | just over a month (all being well). And you can buy it on US | exchanges today. | | [1] particl.io | RL_Quine wrote: | How much did MobileCoin pay for inclusion in Signal? | BlueMatt wrote: | According to coinmarketcap, MobileCoin's "Fully Diluted Market | Cap is $15,638,578,369.65". If we take a conservative | assumption of a 1% advisor grant (which would be very | conservative for a system that has been pitching signal | integration as its primary feature for years), then that would | put the value of the integration at around $150 million today | (or tens of millions a few weeks ago). | 13rac1 wrote: | https://www.wired.com/story/mobilecoin-cryptocurrency/ It is | Moxie's, the creator of Signal, pet crypto project. | josh2600 wrote: | MobileCoin has not yet paid Signal anything for integrating | MobileCoin. We intend to donate a great deal of money to Signal | over the coming years. | | We believe in Signal's mission and we think that the world is a | better place with Signal in it. | RL_Quine wrote: | Moxie Marlinspike is listed as an advisor for MobileCoin, was | this not a paid position? | josh2600 wrote: | Moxie != Signal. | | Moxie, as an individual, is a paid technical advisor to | MobileCoin but the reality is that we could never pay Moxie | what his time is worth. I am thankful that he has chosen to | help make this project a reality. | fourstar wrote: | >Moxie creates Signal | | >Moxie advises MobileCoin | | >MobileCoin gets integrated into Signal | | Hm, yes, must just be one large coincidence that this | "integration" happened. | pixxel wrote: | And a reason surfaced to continue to connect users to | their phone numbers... | | >>The UK also has receiver verification. If I try to send | to an account and it doesn't match the name I'm sending | to, my bank will warn me. How do you stop impersonation? | | A: Signal relies on phone numbers for identities. Other | apps that integrate MobileCoin may have a higher | threshold for identification. | slenk wrote: | Unfortunately, Moxie is Signal because he won't let | anyone else (open-source clients) connect to the Signal | servers OR run their own. | lrvick wrote: | Signal is entirely centralized and Moxie runs the | organization. | | For all intents and purposes Moxie is 100% in control of | the Signal network and could shut it down or release a | malicious update that plaintexts messages at any time. | BlueMatt wrote: | The revelations from the Platformer article [1] about how | Signal works inside make it pretty clear that Moxie ~= | Signal. | | [1] https://www.platformer.news/p/-the-battle-inside- | signal | aaaxyz wrote: | That is just sad. | | I've been a longtime signal user (since the | textsecure/redphone days). I've always given moxie a pass | on his controversial decisions (no federalisation, no 3rd | party clients, no fdroid repo, relying on Google play | services, being slow to release serverside source code) | because the team was small and obviously had to cut | corners somewhere. | | But learning that they spent their time adding support | for a (premined?) cryptocurrency just because it's | Moxie's pet project is disheartening. What are the odds | that this would've been merged into the project if it had | been a merge request opened by someone from the outside? | vitno wrote: | I am incredibly disappointed in the Signal team. I don't want | cryptocurrencies (or even any payments!) in my primary text app. | Crypto/blockchain is fine, but if I want to use it I'll download | a different app. | | I'm finding this announcement creates some uncertainty in my head | about Signal's long-term future. | fastball wrote: | How did you want Signal to monetize? | lrvick wrote: | Maybe like Matrix did? | | Sell turn key servers for people that lack the time or | interest to run their own. | | Federated and ethical. | [deleted] | fastball wrote: | Yep, that is one option, though that doesn't seem like the | route Moxie wants to take from what I've seen. He seems to | think that you need a cohesive centralized platform if you | want to be competitive (2016)[1]. | | At this point if you want federated it probably makes more | sense to just use Matrix. | | [1] https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ | RL_Quine wrote: | > _Signal Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit. We're proud of | that designation and we're out to prove that a nonprofit can | innovate and scale as well as any business driven by a profit | motive._ | | https://signalfoundation.org/ | fastball wrote: | Unsurprisingly money is still needed to pay for development | and hosting costs, and Brian Acton's loan won't last | forever. | vitno wrote: | This explicitly doesn't monetize Signal so this line of | argument isn't particularly relevant. | TameAntelope wrote: | There seems to be a very large amount of outstanding coin | that the founders just happen to control... | lvs wrote: | Why this particular coin that nobody uses? This seems weird. Is | this a monetisation scheme we should be worried about? | fourstar wrote: | IMO Signal/Moxie "advises" this project, so to me this seems | like their way of cashing out (I'm assuming they hold the | majority of coins), given that Signal itself is a not-for- | profit organization. At least that's what I'd do if I were | Moxie. | tradertef wrote: | They hold majority.. | | Geee 1 hour ago | unvote [-] | | There are 250 million units of mobilecoin, and majority of | them are owned by the founders. Only 37.5 million have been | distributed. With current price ($65), they're worth $14B | already. This makes the project a scam and impossible for it | to work as a reliable money that holds value. Bitcoin had no | pre-mine and has been fairly distributed from the start. | rOOb85 wrote: | I haven't seen any sources to back that up. Just that one | comment claiming those facts. | bilal4hmed wrote: | With Signal not releasing their server code and now this, I | regret using and asking a good chunk of my base to move to | Signal. | adamsvystun wrote: | This is not entirely true. There has been a delay (11 month) in | the sync of the server code with a public GitHub repo. | Currently all commits are there: | https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/commits/master | ciconia wrote: | My thoughts exactly. This makes a very bad impression. | codethief wrote: | I haven't made up my mind regarding the payments feature yet | but yeah, what's up with the server code? Why hasn't it been | updated in over a year?[0] | | Also, why do the Signal developers trust SGX so much and have | stayed completely silent about SGX vulnerabilities - even when | the cryptographers whose quotes they used to put on the | signal.org home page[1] are increasingly critical?[2] | | Finally, why is there no open communication about major events | like the Signal PIN UI fuckup last year or the server issues | earlier this year? Foundation or not, if no communication is | happening and they're not demonstrating that they're capable of | openly admitting mistakes and learning, they're not gaining the | trust of anyone. | | Don't get me wrong, I've been a die-hard fan of Signal since | the early TextSecure days and have convinced > 100 people to | switch but I'm starting to have a bad aftertaste and some of my | friends (equally big Signal fans) are, too. | | EDIT: Looks like the Signal server repo[3] was updated _today_ | , as this article[4] (in German) attests to. I had last checked | the repo this past weekend. I suppose the repo hadn't been | updated to keep the MobileCoin thing secret but I do wonder: | Why not simply create a private branch instead of risking one's | reputation for openness? | | [0]: | http://web.archive.org/web/20210311053716/https://github.com... | | [1]: | http://web.archive.org/web/20200201112751/https://signal.org... | | [2]: https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2020/07/10/a-few- | th... | | [3]: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server | | [4]: https://www.golem.de/news/crypto-messenger-signal-server- | nic... | [deleted] | hlieberman wrote: | Why not use GNU Taler, if you insist on integrating a irrelevant | payment mechanism? | alexnewman wrote: | What's that? | viro wrote: | I can't upvote this enough. | remirk wrote: | Their website is pretty good and answers your question better | than I could: https://taler.net/en/principles.html | summm wrote: | Because GNU Taler wouldn't allow them to get rich quick. | olah_1 wrote: | GNU Taler would have been far _more_ relevant because it is a | generic payment processing service and not tied to any specific | coin. | [deleted] | raspyberr wrote: | Super sad that they didn't choose Monero. | AfouToPatisa wrote: | Multiple reasons why MOB over monero but I will state only the | most practical one, using the stellar consensus a tx takes | 3-5sec. With monero that's more like 1-2mins if Im not mistaken | which is a big no-no for the usecase of instant mobile private | payments. Fees are also super low w/ mob (0.01) | | TLDR: UX | selsta wrote: | XMR transaction can show up instantly once they are in the | mempool, a user does not have to wait for a confirmation to | see a transaction. Obviously there are uses where you want to | wait for confirmations, but for the use case of sending money | to friends it isn't necessary. | | Fees are also in a similar range (0.01). | olah_1 wrote: | It is. Monero community seems to have made so many choices that | prove it is dedicated to the "digital cash" use case (dynamic | block sizes, constant tail emission, etc). | dethos wrote: | The tech behind this new "coin" they are using seems to be | based on Monero. Even their book [1] says the following: | | > 'Mechanics of MobileCoin: First Edition' is an adaptation of | 'Zero to Monero: Second Edition', published in April 2020. | | [1] https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of- | MobileCoin/blob/maste... | matheusmoreira wrote: | That was my first thought as well. Why didn't they pick Monero? | I don't see how any other coin could be better. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Using an established cryptocurrency doesn't provide a good | way for them to profit. | | MobileCoin is pre-mined and the majority of coins are held by | founders and the MobileCoin organization. They want to sell | you coins, so partnering with Signal to force you to buy | their coins to transact on the app gives them a revenue | stream. | | If they simply added Monero, they wouldn't be able to sell | you coins. | wjntzf wrote: | No near-instant confirmation, maybe. At first glance not a | big problem for users, but can run you into a lot of problems | justupvoting wrote: | Only thing I can think of off the top of my head is optics | (most of the installed userbase for signal has probably only | ever heard of monero in a negative light). | txr wrote: | I'm not sure this solves any problem users have. Due to the | nature of Signal requiring the phone number of the counter part | to be in the phone book this feature will mostly be usable with | friends or people you know directly. A feature which some users | might want is to easily send money to a friend. These transfers | will therefor be inherently be based on the countries currency. | I'm not sure people will accept a cryptocurrency which value | fluctuates in relation to the normal currency. | | For other uses cases they can use a cryptocurrency directly (even | MobileCoin) from another app. I can understand that | cryptocurrencies are very interesting from a technical and | cryptographic point of view. But in their current state most of | them a more for speculation and doing state of the art computer | science. | | Therefore I think this totally useless in the signal app. | tradertef wrote: | This is really really sad. It removed all my trust in Signal. | EGreg wrote: | https://community.intercoin.org/t/signal-another-centralized... | dash2 wrote: | I don't know if crypto is good or bad, but I can't imagine this | feature driving Signal uptake. It would be better to focus on | allowing ordinary payments in GBP via Signal. Even if the | payments themselves weren't private, the messages still would be. | mikeiz404 wrote: | For those wondering about volatility... | | > MobileCoin also remains even more volatile than older | cryptocurrencies, with constant price swings that will | significantly change the balances in a user's Signal wallet over | the course of days or even hours--hardly the sort of issue that | Venmo users have to deal with. (Since March 27, MobileCoin's | value has shot up nearly 600 percent, possibly due to rumors of | the impending Signal integration or possibly the result of a | "short-squeeze.") | | > To try to tame that volatility problem, Marlinspike and | Goldbard say they imagine adding a feature in the future that | will automatically exchange users' payments in dollars or another | more stable currency for MobileCoin only when they make a | payment, and then exchange it back on the recipient's side-- | though it's not yet clear if those trades could be made without | leaving a trail that might identify the user. "There's a world | where maybe when you receive money, it can optionally just | automatically settle into a pegged thing," Marlinspike says. "And | then when you send money it converts back out." | | https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messa... | wjntzf wrote: | The project is brand-new, what do you expect? In any case, the | end-game is to use MOB for the transaction and instantly | convert to fiat, so volatility would not be of concern to the | end-user | Jommi wrote: | " the end game is to make the user buy a house, sell the | house to the other user, and make that user sell the house | into fiat, it's that simple!" | Anon1096 wrote: | Are there any tax implications of sending someone | cryptocurrency that has appreciated? Say you owned 1 million in | mobilecoin a month ago that is now 6 million, can you just send | it to someone and avoid the capital gains tax? And if not, do | apps like Signal have to report these earnings on transfer from | mobilecoin to USD? (since signal plans to facilitate it in some | way) | nickthemagicman wrote: | 1. MobileCoin premines 250m coins | | 2. Moxie gets paid for being on their advisory board | | 3. Moxie directs his non-profit to integrate MobileCoin in secret | | 4. MobileCoin offers 1/5 of their premine for sale. | | 5. Signal announcement spikes price to $60 | | How accurate is this? | | via: https://twitter.com/lrvick/status/1379536536459431937 | codethief wrote: | > 3. Moxie directs his non-profit to integrate MobileCoin in | secret | | The fact that Moxie is collaborating with MobileCoin has been | known for _years_. | corobo wrote: | oh here we go.. | | I can't wait till we stop sprinkling bitcoin over everything. At | least when we go back to ads we'll stop getting the spam from | bots trying to claim their free $0.00003 in cryptocoin of the | week | mek wrote: | I'd be super excited if this was about Monero :/ | qqii wrote: | Not a very surprising choice given Signals current use of SGX and | reliance on their centralised server. It's a bit of a shame as | MobileCoin doesn't offer as strong guarentees as other privacy | coins but I'm interested to see how they maintain privacy whilst | peg the transacted value - I can't imagine how they wouldn't have | to rely on an exchange for liquidity. | | SCRT network is a similar project that uses SGX but supports | smart contacts so they could have a Maker like pegged token. | seany wrote: | What are the KYC requirements? I'm going to assume that it's | none, since it's privacy focused | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | Does KYC apply to all transactions or only to purchase of | currency? | | Because I can get bank notes from an ATM and pay anyone in cash | without having an intermediary verify my identity when money | changes hands. | kasey_junk wrote: | Not over certain spending limits you can't. | seany wrote: | In practice, sure you can. You have to be careful about | getting it back into the normal banking system if you want | to do that; but you aren't going to be raided by the secret | service for handing someone 30k in a parking lot (something | I have done before) | yosito wrote: | If even Signal is compromised, I'm debating just going back to | WhatsApp for convenience and assuming that every message I send | and every contact I have is fully public information that can be | used by advertisers and governments to profile me. | meowfly wrote: | The comment from the article echos my own sentiments: | | > Speaking solely as a person who is really into encrypted | messaging, it terrifies me that they're going to take this really | clean story of an encrypted messenger and mix it up with the | nightmare of laws and regulations and vulnerability that is | cryptocurrency. | | Moreover, there are three other points I'd add: | | 1. I don't like "do everything" apps like WeChat or Line. One of | Signals strengths was UX that focused on it's core competency. | Early in Signal's development they would add privacy features. | Lately they have been adding social features. This, however, | feels especially out of left field and likely to hurt the UX. | | 2. This smells like dev resources will be spent building and | maintaining something not related to messaging. | | 3. I've always had a "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" | rationalization that gives Signal autonomy to grow a privacy | centric messaging app despite the deficits (e.g lack of | federation). In contrast, I personally associate "crypto" with | "scam". There have been so many shady ICOs and pump-dump schemes | around crypto. This will taint the product for those of us who | don't think of crypto currency as being anything more than pump- | and-dump schemes and a way to buy dab rigs online. | takenpilot wrote: | In a lot of ways, the transfer of cryptocurrency is the same as | the transfer of generic messages. | | It's only when you're transferring them back to | dollars/yuan/yen/etc. that it's suddenly currency from a | government. | gsich wrote: | So how do I get the cryptocurrency in the first place? | Especially Mobilecoin? | guerrilla wrote: | I'll tell you one way it's not, is as soon as someone commits | a crime who happens to use Signal and the media gets ahold of | this. It'll be a circus with terms like "dark webv and wha | not thrown arohnd. GPs point #3 is kind of important for | their reputation and if we want to onboard more people into | crypto messaging. | sequoia wrote: | > Early in Signal's development they would add privacy | features. Lately they have been adding social features. | | This is intentional and relates to Signal's growth in the past | few years. It's not "a hacker tool for nerds" it's "a friendly, | easy to use chat app with stickers & voice messages (also | strong encryption)." | | IRC does one thing and does it well, and barely anyone uses it. | The "clean technical vision" story isn't enough on its own. | BlueTemplar wrote: | Well, I guess that it can go both ways : you can have too | many or not enough features... | rapnie wrote: | Amen to all your points. I find this really disappointing. The | "yeah, but they are a non-profit so you can be assured they are | good custodians of the product" no longer goes for me. | guerrilla wrote: | Yeah I agree. I wouldn't mind so much if this were a second app | but this is kind of scary. | qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: | Is your backend open source, or not? | | Haven't seen the git updated in a while. | brodo wrote: | Effectively not anymore. Here is a very recent german article | about it: https://www.golem.de/news/crypto-messenger-signal- | server-nic... | | No updates in the repo for over a year and no answers from the | team. The whole crypto currency thing is also a red flag for | me. Matrix seems to be the better option by now... | dunefox wrote: | If anything, Threema is the best alternative. | pmlnr wrote: | No, it really is not. Matrix or XMPP. | hiq wrote: | Old news: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server | hiq wrote: | Last commit 5 days ago: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal- | Server | olah_1 wrote: | This is either the mandela effect (I know for a fact that the | server was stuck on "April 2020" for at least 6 months), or | Signal intentionally hid development and then revealed it all | when they realized it was bad PR. | codethief wrote: | No, you're absolutely right. The repo had indeed been stuck | on "April 2020". I last checked it two days ago. | | Wayback Machine for March 11: http://web.archive.org/web/20 | 210311053716/https://github.com... | hiq wrote: | No, they just pushed today. They presumably didn't want to | talk about MobileCoin before it was ready. | Forbo wrote: | I saw that not too long ago myself. Purely speculation | here, but perhaps they opted not to publish any commits | until they had a chance to have their MobileCoin | implementation audited? Just wish they had been more | forthcoming about why they were not pushing commits. | approxim8ion wrote: | Them not allowing federation sucks, because I would absolutely | use a client with this removed. | RL_Quine wrote: | On some level, they can't prevent you from just using the | backend. Unfortunately just maintaining a fork with different | branding is essentially a full time job, I used to do this so | that I could use a work and personal number in two instances of | the app but it was too much effort to be worthwhile. | timwaagh wrote: | I was concerned about how signal was monetising. They barely | receive any scrutiny and people take them at their word too much | because they are supposedly non commercial. | | This basically confirms my suspicions | alexnewman wrote: | I mined my first btc on a laptop when that was thing. It was so | hi tech when it was launched. It seems like it's features are | mostly gradual and around the edges. | | Mobilecoin feels hi tech | drummer wrote: | This is huge. Huuuuuuuuge. I haven't checked MobileCoin yet but | hope it is as good with privacy as Signal but also decentralized. | mLuby wrote: | Is this bizarre feature actually some kind of warrant canary? | | I thought Signal was already financially secure. | EMM_386 wrote: | Mobilecoin was flat for long time at around $7 and then on March | 28th started a dramatic rise to $66 today. | | There were rumors in late January that Signal was looking into | Mobilecoin but that seems unrelated, and I'm not sure I buy a | short-squeeze scenario as mentioned on Twitter. | | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mobilecoin/ | | https://twitter.com/classicmacro/status/1375868871509442562 | edent wrote: | The UK already has faster payments in all major banks. I can send | and receive money instantly from app or Web. Will yours be as | fast as that? | | The UK has a problem with authorised push payment fraud. Banks | can recover funds which have been sent as a result of phishing / | fraud. How can I reverse a payment on your platform if it was | fraudulent? | | The UK also has receiver verification. If I try to send to an | account and it doesn't match the name I'm sending to, my bank | will warn me. How do you stop impersonation? | | There's no cost to sending payments on most mainstream banks. How | much do you charge? | | Most banks let the user block receiving payments from specific | accounts. How do you stop harassers sending unwanted money? | | Thanks! | leetcrew wrote: | > How do you stop harassers sending unwanted money? | | idk, but this sounds like a great problem to have. | frakkingcylons wrote: | I wouldn't want to be barraged with messages from spammers | because they're sending me $.0001 | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Not really. Someone steals money, sends them to you, your are | having lots of trouble proving you are not an accomplice. If | you are a government official, you can be framed as receiving | a bribe. | | In russia government can send your organisation money from | abroad via an agent and then shut you down as a 'foreign | agent'. | Jtsummers wrote: | > In russia government can send your organisation money | from abroad via an agent and then shut you down as a | 'foreign agent'. | | They could do this with traditional banking systems as | well. Presumably the Russian government has a high degree | of surveillance with regard to their domestic banks like | every other nation in the world has. Creating a false | financial trail is made slightly easier with crypto | currencies, but for a nation state it's not hard to do with | traditional banking systems. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Creating a false trail is far more difficult than asking | some scoundrel send 100 euro while vacationing in Italy | or Spain. Also, for a FSB operative it is an opportunity | to go to spain to 'supervise' the operation, lol. | josh2600 wrote: | >>The UK already has faster payments in all major banks. I can | send and receive money instantly from app or Web. Will yours be | as fast as that? | | A: MobileCoin is as fast (or faster in some cases) than a bank | payment in the UK with greater privacy. As far as settling back | to Fiat, if that's what you're asking about, the velocity of | that depends on on-ramp and off-ramp integrations which will | come over time (but it looks like there's no reason MobileCoin | can't help developers deliver payments at the same speed as | banks). | | >>The UK has a problem with authorised push payment fraud. | Banks can recover funds which have been sent as a result of | phishing / fraud. How can I reverse a payment on your platform | if it was fraudulent? | | A: Payments on MobileCoin cannot be reversed at the protocol | level. If you want escrow and reversibility, you should use a | wallet or payment service that supports those primitives. We | believe that developers will build such services on top of the | foundation of the MobileCoin protocol. | | >>The UK also has receiver verification. If I try to send to an | account and it doesn't match the name I'm sending to, my bank | will warn me. How do you stop impersonation? | | A: Signal relies on phone numbers for identities. Other apps | that integrate MobileCoin may have a higher threshold for | identification. | | >>There's no cost to sending payments on most mainstream banks. | How much do you charge? | | A: Fees are set by the foundation (which has a stated goal of | keeping transaction fees to around $.04 when the network isn't | congested). Currently fees are higher as they need to be | adjusted by a foundation vote. | | >>Most banks let the user block receiving payments from | specific accounts. How do you stop harassers sending unwanted | money? | | A: Signal doesn't allow people you haven't keypaired with to | send you funds. If you have accepted a message request from | someone, they can send you money. | hmsimha wrote: | Heads up, it would be useful on HN if you were to disclose | your affiliations / interests when posting, especially about | something like a cryptocurrency you helped design. | | It gives readers a better sense of your ability to answer the | questions accurately, in addition to letting people make | assessments based on the potential conflict of interest. | | Also, responding here and inviting discussion on a technical | level is possibly the best thing you can do for perception of | Mob, because this is a forum where those questions are likely | to get asked. | | Edit: I see you've done that in another post on this thread. | Since we don't have anything like flair it would also help | people who don't read the whole thread. | josh2600 wrote: | Yes, this originally was a child comment to the thread | where I identified myself as the MobileCoin CEO. Dang | merged two threads and this got separated from the top- | level comment. | hiq wrote: | > Most banks let the user block receiving payments from | specific accounts. How do you stop harassers sending unwanted | money? | | First time I read about that, how does this work in practice? A | person regularly sends you small amounts such that all you see | is their name whenever you log into your bank account? | dan-robertson wrote: | This was my question too. I don't really understand why the | U.K. was chosen as the initial market. At least in the U.S. | people are used to venmo and suchlike being services they might | use. My guess is that either the cryptocurrency people are | based in the U.K. or that whoever is in charge is viewing the | country as something like America but easier to get started | (anglophone but smaller market for testing or easier | regulations or less competition) however I don't think the U.K. | is a good substitute for America in this case. | | The one venmo-like thing people _do_ use a lot in the U.K. is | probably something like revolut for dealing with different | currencies and international transfers (either for travel in | Europe or for migrant workers sending earnings abroad for | family or retirement). But a service that's only available in | the U.K. isn't much use for that. | | I also personally don't really see the privacy use. I think I'm | willing to give up a reasonably large amount of private | information about the people on either side of a transaction if | it is effective at reducing fraud and making transactions | reversible. | rvz wrote: | So when Keybase added Stellar support for payments, this was met | with lots of hostility and disappointment, such as 'cryptocoin | bullshit' [0] or 'Yeah, I am not going to use any product | associated with anything cryptocurrency. Just smells bad. [1] | | Now the same thing has happened on Signal; HN's favourite | messaging app. So why is this met with warm welcoming arms | especially when they are also going into cryptocurrencies? | | Maybe the HN sentiment back then was filled with those who missed | the crypto bull-run of late 2017 and the same ones have missed it | again last year. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16545092 | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16546963 | [deleted] | rapnie wrote: | No warm welcome by me.. on the lookout for something different | again. Btw, for people using Keybase and considering an | alternative, have a look at https://keyoxide.org .. project | still young, but very promising plus they intend to only focus | on the core features. No chat or other stuff mixed in. | ornornor wrote: | Maybe because people trust the signal project more than keybase | (which sold out to zoom, of all companies) | 627467 wrote: | Would only make sense if keybase incorporating stellar | occured after acquisition and not before (as it actually | happened) | leppr wrote: | I think it's 2 factors. | | First, indeed the sentiment changed radically between now and | then. For some reason, this subject has always attracted | irrationality on HN. Back then any comment vaguely positive | about cryptocurrencies would accumulate downvotes, now threads | are full of clearly invested shills (you can see it in this | very thread). | | Secondly and more specifically, Stellar, being a simple Ripple | fork with an equally dubious token distribution, was a weird | fit for Keybase. | | MobileCoin, while having some of the same downsides (federated, | centralized token holders distribution) has a more interesting | design, and is closer to the actual cryptocurrency/cypherpunk | spirit thanks to its fully private transactions and balances. | tych0 wrote: | > So why is this met with warm welcoming arms especially when | they are also going into cryptocurrencies? | | In the other thread it was not: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713953 | [deleted] | yoavm wrote: | I really wish Signal had stable voice and video calls before it | added this blockchain thing. | fastball wrote: | My voice calls have been very stable. What kind of issues are | you experiencing? | yoavm wrote: | They basically only work if I'm on a great Wifi and the other | side is too. As long as the connection isn't perfect, the | only way to continue the conversation is on Whatsapp (or | Zoom). | drummer wrote: | I hope Signal opens up to worldwide payments soon. If anyone | knows, some kind of roadmap would be nice to have. | morsch wrote: | Help Us Encourage Matrix Adoption | otoburb wrote: | Congratulations on the announcement. | | >> _Those outputs contain the entire original supply of | MobileCoin (250 million MOB)_ [1] | | Is the entire supply of 250M MOB available for sale on FTX, or is | only a restricted number of MOB tokens available for sale to UK | residents? Is it fair to assume that the MobileCoin Foundation | has no plans for an airdrop (unlike Stellar)? | | [1] "Mechanics of MobileCoin", v0.0.39, pg. 133 | josh2600 wrote: | A majority of the supply of MobileCoins is available for | purchase at https://www.buymobilecoin.com. We have many plans | for how to help users get coins but none that we are prepared | to disclose today beyond the aforementioned website. | lrvick wrote: | Down | donclark wrote: | So is this testing only available in the UK? | | If so, maybe make that more clear or prominent? | Geee wrote: | There are 250 million units of mobilecoin, and majority of them | are owned by the founders. Only 37.5 million have been | distributed. With current price ($65), they're worth $14B | already. This makes the project a scam and impossible for it to | work as a reliable money that holds value. Bitcoin had no pre- | mine and has been fairly distributed from the start. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | The founding organization owns 85% of the total market cap of a | coin? That should be raising red flags for everyone involved. | | There is no valid reason for the vast majority of what is | supposedly a currency to be owned by the company that created | it. Imagine if PayPal launched but required everyone to | transact in fractional shares of PayPal to get anything done. | Oh and by the way, those shares are majority owned by the | founders, but they'll sell you some so you can send them to | your friends. | | This is ridiculous. | josh2600 wrote: | The majority of the MobileCoins are available for purchase | for non-us persons at https://www.buymobilecoin.com right | now. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Yes, we're well aware that you would love to sell us those | coins you pre-mined. | | That's the problem. | | If Signal was serious about this they would have launched | their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined coin to | their users. | xur17 wrote: | > If Signal was serious about this they would have | launched their own fork instead of pitching a pre-mined | coin to their users. | | Agreed. They either would have launched their own fork | and distributed the vast majority to their users, or at | the very least chosen an existing project that was fairly | well distributed. | | This makes me believe they primarily did this in return | for an incentive from Mobilecoin. | otoburb wrote: | The slashdot effect triggered Cloudflare's DDoS protection | and is returning errors for that page. | josh2600 wrote: | No, this is just what happens when you try to hit the | page from a US IP address. | fblp wrote: | There is only a "contact us" link on that page. | rOOb85 wrote: | Can you post your source for these claims? | marcinzm wrote: | Their own white paper (no longer hosted on their site it | seems) says they created 250 million tokens and pre-sold 37.5 | million. | | https://mixin.one/assets/MobileCoin-Whitepaper-EN_FINAL.pdf | josh2600 wrote: | This whitepaper is not the whitepaper I wrote back in 2017. | We took that down because it was ultimately not the design | we implemented. The full system design can be found here: | https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of- | MobileCoin/blob/maste.... | opheliate wrote: | Fyi, while the whitepaper marcinzm links to may not be | the design you implemented, it is the first result (for | me, at least, in the UK) when googling "MobileCoin | Whitepaper", while the Mechanics of MobileCoin repo | doesn't appear at all. | | Just in terms of avoiding confusion, you might want to | reach out to mixin.one to try to replace that document | with one that clarifies that the design outlined there | was not used? Or publicise the actual design a bit | better? (I couldn't find a link to this repo on the | MobileCoin website, which is why I searched for the | whitepaper elsewhere in the first place). | Geee wrote: | It's in the whitepaper. There are 250 million coins in total, | and 37.5 million were sold in the ICO. I couldn't find any | information on further distribution or monetary policy, so I | assume the founders still hold them. | lottin wrote: | Bitcoin rates worse than North Korea in terms of wealth | distribution as measured by the Gini coefficient. [1] | | [1] https://blog.dshr.org/2018/10/gini-coefficients-of- | cryptocur... | modeless wrote: | All calculations of this sort are fatally flawed because they | assume all the coins in one address are owned by one person. | That would be like calculating the US Gini coefficient | assuming that all bank accounts are owned by the CEO of the | bank. | doggosphere wrote: | A system which is 12 years old, of which many people have not | heard about, don't understand, or may not even care to | understand. In some countries its illegal to use. Most | countries have unfriendly tax treatment (capital gains on | your coffee purchase). Can't be paid in it. Can't yet pay | your federal taxes in it. Uncertain if the government will | one day ban it. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Most countries have unfriendly tax treatment (capital | gains on your coffee purchase). | | That's definitely unfriendly tax treatment. Is it different | from the tax treatment that applies to national currencies? | doggosphere wrote: | Not sure in the US, but in Canada you don't need to | report capital gain on foreign currencies if its under | $200. | orph wrote: | Even UK-only release in Signal means more people with | cryptocurrency wallets than all other cryptocurrencies | combined. | megameter wrote: | It's roughly similar to Brave's userbase, though Brave is | opt-in. Figures from 2020 put both in the low tens of | millions. | qertoip wrote: | MobileCoin is not a cryptocurrency. | otoburb wrote: | The Wired article that the CEO of Mobilecoin is implicitly | endorsing in this thread specifically categorizes | Mobilecoin as a cryptocurrency. At least, it doesn't seem | to be a distinction worth splitting hairs about (yet). | admax88q wrote: | Is the number of empty wallets of a cryptocurrency a useful | metric in any way? | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | I would say yes, at least to the extent that owners are | aware that they exist and potentially become more likely to | use. | MithrilTuxedo wrote: | Agreed. I was half expecting this was going to be using Monero, | one of the more popular privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies I | know of that's already being used. | | E.g. the only cryptos I've seen people accepting on dark web | markets are Bitcoin and Monero. | akvadrako wrote: | Monero is clearly the most practical secure coin as evidenced | by it's popularity on the darknet. But I think what | MobileCoin offers is speed. | [deleted] | [deleted] | CynicusRex wrote: | No "pre-mine" doesn't mean fairly distributed. Bitcoin is a | multi-level marketing pyramid scheme as well. Early adopters | mine or buy large proportions at negligible prices while late | adopters mine or buy negligible proportions at large prices. | olah_1 wrote: | The gold and oil rushes weren't "fair" either. Fortune favors | the bold, I guess. I was salty for a long time about bitcoin | early buyers being filthy rich now. My saltiness clouded my | vision of the real value there. Granted, I think there are | better solutions than bitcoin now, but I respect it. | anonporridge wrote: | By this definition, every company stock is a multi-level | marketing pyramid scheme. | | In fact, company stock is WAY worse, because the majority of | people are legally prohibited from investing in private | companies unless they're an accredited investor (already | rich). So, only rich people (other than founders and early | employees) are allowed to buy in at super low prices before | handing off the bag to the public. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | This is incorrect. Stock represents actual ownership of a | scarce resource (a company). That company would have value | whether or not it was explicitly sold as a stock. The value | doesn't come from the stock. | | Cryptocurrency removes the underlying asset and simply | sells shares of artificial scarcity. It's only as valuable | as what people decide to trade it at, because it doesn't | represent ownership of anything other than itself. | chrisco255 wrote: | > This is incorrect. Stock represents actual ownership of | a scarce resource (a company). That company would have | value whether or not it was explicitly sold as a stock. | The value doesn't come from the stock. | | Depending on the voting rights embedded in the share, | your ownership is likely meaningless. It doesn't | guarantee you rights to dividends necessarily and even if | it does, the company can just choose to never issue a | dividend (like Amazon). It doesn't necessarily grant you | voting rights for the Board of Directors either. Worse, | you have to go through a 3rd party broker to buy a share | or trust a company like Robinhood to hold your shares for | you. As we saw with GameStop, they can rug pull on you at | any time. With decentralized cryptos like BTC & ETH, that | can't happen from your own private wallet. You can always | transact. | | Cryptos such as BTC & ETH are provably scarce, not | artificially scarce. You can validate supply at any time | by running your own node and joining the network. You | don't need anyone's permission to do that. It's a public | blockchain. | fwip wrote: | It's both provably scarce and artificially scarce. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > your ownership is likely meaningless | | That's not true. The shares still represent a claim on | the underlying company. | | If someone wants to acquire the company, they have to | compensate you for the shares that you hold. | | Companies can't simply wave a magic wand and steal value | from shareholders. There's more to stock ownership than | voting rights. | doggosphere wrote: | _Stock represents actual ownership of a scarce resource | (a company)._ | | Is there a limit to how many shares a company can issue? | No, a board can technically issue shares unto infinity. | There is no guarantee of scarcity, no guarantee they will | not raise more money. | | _That company would have value whether or not it was | explicitly sold as a stock. The value doesn't come from | the stock._ | | So when a company has no profit but a high valuation, is | this the market correctly discounting future predicted | cashflows and giving a company fair value, or is it some | sort of scam? Ex: Is NKLA actually a $5.2b electric | vehicle company? How about the spade of Chinese IPOs that | ended up being vaporware? | | _Cryptocurrency removes the underlying asset and simply | sells shares of artificial scarcity._ | | The scarcity isn't artificial. It's mathematically | provable, open source and auditable. If you think you can | manufacture "fake" btc on the blockchain, feel free to | try. If you think you can successfully fork and create a | whole new chain, you're also welcome to try. | | _It's only as valuable as what people decide to trade it | at, because it doesn't represent ownership of anything | other than itself._ | | This is actually factual for anything in existence. A | piece of bread. A $100m painting. You're starting to | figure out what peculiar creatures humans are. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Is there a limit to how many shares a company can | issue? No, a board can technically issue shares unto | infinity. There is no guarantee of scarcity, no guarantee | they will not raise more money. | | The scarce asset is _the company_ , not the shares. Yes, | they can issue more shares, but those shares still | represent the same company plus the new investment money | raised by raising the shares. They're not creating more | company out of thin air when they issue more shares. | | EDIT: To clarify some misconceptions in the comments | below: When a company sells more shares into the market | they are not simply diluting away existing shareholders. | The keyword is that they are selling shares, meaning they | take money in exchange for shares. The company's value | increases by the amount of money they take in exchange | for the sale. | | Example: If a company is worth $1,000,000 and has | 1,000,000 shares outstanding, each share is worth $1. If | the company decides to sell another 100,000 shares and | the market buys them at $1/each, there are now 1,100,000 | shares outstanding and the company is now worth | $1,100,000 because they took in $100,000 of cash via | share sales. Existing shareholders have not lost any | money or value. | blackearl wrote: | It doesn't matter if it represents the company because | the thing that shareholders care about is how much $ each | share represents. This is why a stock will tank when a | company talks about diluting their existing shares by | creating new shares out of thin air. What you're talking | about would be more akin to a stock split. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | When a company sells more shares, they money they raise | from selling those shares contributes to the value of the | company. | | If a company sells 100,000 shares at a dollar each, the | company is now worth $100,000 more because they now have | another $100,000 on their balance sheet. No value is lost | in this process. | | > This is why a stock will tank when a company talks | about diluting their existing shares by creating new | shares out of thin air. | | Companies can't just declare that more shares exist and | dilute away shareholders like you said. They either issue | them as stock based compensation, which is an expense, or | they sell the shares to buyers, which means money goes | toward their bottom line. | blackearl wrote: | Value is lost to existing shareholders who have the value | of their shares diluted. Everything you're saying may | seem logical, but economics is often illogical and any | 1:1 $:stock sales still tank the share price. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Value is lost to existing shareholders who have the | value of their shares diluted. | | You're confusing percentage dilution with absolute | diluation. | | The shares represent the value of the company. The value | of the company has increased by the amount of money | raised. Each share represents a lower percentage of the | company, but this is offset by the fact that the value of | the company has increased _by the amount of money | raised_. The shares have not been diluted on an | _absolute_ value scale. | | Owning 10% of a company worth $1mm is the same value as | owning 5% of a company worth $2mm. | | If you own 10% of a $1mm company that raises another $1mm | by selling more shares, you now own 5% of a 2mm company. | Your percentage ownership is diluted, but your value has | not been stolen. | | This is basic pre- and post-investment math. Shareholders | are diluted on a percentage basis, but not on an absolute | basis. | doggosphere wrote: | Assuming all shares are equal in class, voting power is | diluted. | doggosphere wrote: | OP was responding about stocks being just as much "multi | level marketing" because you still need someone to sell | the shares to, someone willing to pay more for it than | you did. So it is actually irrelevant to scarcity or | "intrinsic value". | chrisco255 wrote: | > but those shares still represent the same company plus | the new investment money raised by raising the shares. | | No. Your shares were _diluted_ by the company issuing new | shares. Now your 100 shares are worth half as much. | Shares have predicted forward value embedded in their | valuation. When you buy a share, you're betting that | company will continue to grow. If it's having to raise | money and issue new stock, odds are it's struggling with | cash on hand. Maybe the bet will work out for you. Maybe | not. Stocks are gambling, though, don't let yourself | believe otherwise. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > No. Your shares were _diluted_ by the company issuing | new shares. Now your 100 shares are worth half as much. | | That's not correct. A company sells shares in exchange | for cash. That cash is owned by the company, which is | represented by the shares. | | Companies can't simply dilute away their shareholders | like you're suggesting. The money raised by selling | shares doesn't simply disappear. | doggosphere wrote: | I own 10% of a company. Several rounds later, I now own | 2% of the company. It is possible the company is now | valued higher or lower than what I got in at. | | Did I get diluted? | CynicusRex wrote: | The stock market being crooked doesn't mean bitcoin isn't | crooked as well. I'm critical of both. | bigiain wrote: | > Bitcoin had no pre-mine | | /me glances at the great big pile of Satoshi coins... | tradertef wrote: | Thanks. Honestly, not surprising.. | [deleted] | Forbo wrote: | > For now it's listed for sale on just one cryptocurrency | exchange | | I think the article might be inaccurate. According to this, | there's at least four exchanges currently: | | https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/mobilecoin#markets | RL_Quine wrote: | 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. | josh2600 wrote: | Hi, | | Before you label MobileCoin a scam, I would encourage you to | take a look at the Github. I think you'll see that we've made a | lot of very carefully considered choices on how to deliver a | great payments experience without many of the compromises other | cryptocurrencies have chosen. Of note, the speed of | transactions, much greener energy design, privacy-protections, | and mobile-first UX are differentiators. Many cryptocurrencies | have some of these features, but I don't know of any other that | has all of them. | | Believe me, I have a lot of feelings about how absurd | cryptocurrency has become in the last decade. At its core, I | still believe that there is something beautiful in | decentralized ledgers and I think that this is the way that the | world will settle debts over the next hundred years. Signal | chose MobileCoin because nothing else met their performance and | privacy standards. In order to meet those goals we wrote a lot | of new technology that is fundamentally different from how | other cryptocurrencies are architected today (check out our | oblivious RAM implementation, for example: | https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/fog). | | I love Signal and I started MobileCoin to help fund their work. | For me, a world with Signal in it is a better place. | RL_Quine wrote: | > _Signal chose MobileCoin because nothing else met their | performance and privacy standards._ | | Signal has obvious financial connections to MobileCoin, | something that frankly nobody else has ever heard of before | today. I find it really difficult to believe that MobileCoin | paying Moxie (which you've acknowledged), and Signal/Moxie | happening to choose MobileCoin for inclusion in Signal when | nobody wanted it was a coincidence. It's insulting to the | intelligence of the reader to even make that claim. | | > _Before you label MobileCoin a scam, I would encourage you | to take a look at the Github._ | | What would that tell me? | bdcs wrote: | "Marlinspike notes, however, that neither he nor Signal own | any MobileCoins." https://www.wired.com/story/signal- | mobilecoin-payments-messa... | RL_Quine wrote: | > _" Moxie, as an individual, is a paid technical advisor | to MobileCoin"_ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715013 | | This seems incompatible with the spirit of the quote in | the article. | hiq wrote: | That's significant in this space, because it implies that | he does not benefit directly[0] from speculation on MOB, | and so has less incentives to get involved in a pump and | dump. | | What I would still like to see for more transparency: | | - legal commitment from the Signal Foundation that no | employee owns any MOB | | - disclosure of money transfers between MobileCoin and | any Signal Foundation employee | | Maybe some of this information could already be extracted | given the statuses of the entities involved? | | [0]: he benefits indirectly because if MobileCoin stays | up, he'll probably stay as a technical advisor | EMM_386 wrote: | Are we talking about both Signals, or just the non-profit | Foundation here? | | What about the LLC? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation | maclured wrote: | _Yet_. There are a couple of trivial ways they could end | up with loads of coins and this statement could still be | true as of the date of the quote. | bjt2n3904 wrote: | Yow, the damage control is quick on this one. Off the front | page, too? | | I don't care about your cryptocurrency. I don't care about | your cryptocurrency being offered in my messenger. | | Let me put it plain and simple. You bring nothing to the | table for me but liability. | | Nothing. But. Liability. | | Signal's one and only feature is security. This feature is a | joke, and devalues Signal. | dang wrote: | Your comment breaks several of the site guidelines. Please | review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and | stick to the rules when posting here. | | The post went off HN's front page because it set off the | flamewar detector. | adamsvystun wrote: | Hi Josh, | | The problem here is not that people think that MobileCoin is | not a useful technology or is not innovative. From what you | are describing it actually seems like a good combination of | features that are particularly suited for the messaging use- | case. | | The problem is in the way the coins were pre-mined. It seems | (we don't really know from the outside) that the knowledge | that Signal would be using MobileCoin has been known early | on. With that knowledge it is very easy to make money by pre- | mining coins. The proper analogy here is insider trading. It | is immoral and that is why people are calling this a scam. | selsta wrote: | Why does the README mention CryptoNote when the project seems | to be based on Monero + SCP? | | https://twitter.com/fluffypony/status/1379559273504641025 | | I guess the whitepaper mentions it, but that isn't suprising | considering koe wrote it. | TheCraiggers wrote: | 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. | candiddevmike wrote: | 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. | TheCraiggers wrote: | 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. | candiddevmike wrote: | > 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. | RL_Quine wrote: | Signal needs to be reliable, safe and have a low barrier of | entry to achieve its goals of allowing widespread private | communication. I thought that when I recommended that my peer | group use it (at this point, all of my normal contacts use it | extensively), I could trust that it would remain clearly | focused on its mission- now I'll need to recommend it with a | caveat to just click through the scam marketing, ICO offers | and "airdrops". | kf wrote: | You're being really cynical in a way that doesn't reflect | the reality of the situation. This doesn't entail scam | marketing, ICO offers, and airdrops just because that's | something that happens in a lot of the rest of | cryptocurrency space. | RL_Quine wrote: | You missed the point. Even if Signal doesn't do the | typical cryptocurrency scam behaviour, I now somehow need | to try to explain to people why it is different to every | other thing in the space that does act like that. On the | face of it, if we assume that the inclusion of MobileCoin | in Signal is completely benign, it's something that's | never happened before. | | Smoking causes cancer, but smoking these specific | cigarettes won't. Do you see the problem with trying to | describe such an absurd situation to somebody? | [deleted] | hiq wrote: | > You missed the point. | | You're making a different point now though, you're saying | that people will associate it with scams which will hurt | adoption. You initially wrote that the UX would be so bad | that you'd have to convince users to bear with it anyway. | | I don't know how they implemented it on the client side, | but it's possible they kept it light, as they've been | doing since the beginning. We'll see soon enough. | | In terms of reputation, this is a long-term battle. | Signal used to be quite unreliable in a lot of aspects, | and hurt adoption. Now it's much better, making the | migration from other messengers way smoother. If they're | able to implement safe, private and convenient payments, | that's one feature other messengers won't have to lure | users away from signal. | codethief wrote: | > You initially wrote that the UX would be so bad that | you'd have to convince users to bear with it anyway. I | don't know how they implemented it on the client side, | but it's possible they kept it light, as they've been | doing since the beginning. We'll see soon enough. | | I think you're confusing UI and UX. Yes, the UI could be | kept light but the user _experience_ can still be | confusing because a payments feature is... surprising. | Why would a messaging app come with a payments feature if | not to make money and exploit the user? | | Not saying that this is happening here but this is what | people _think_ , i.e. the emotional _experience_. | hiq wrote: | OP wrote: | | > just click through the scam marketing, ICO offers and | "airdrops" | | That's what I meant by UX. | | > user experience can still be confusing because a | payments feature is... surprising | | Everything new is "surprising", that's a low bar. Chat | apps in China have had this feature for years now, and | it's also a feature in WhatsApp, a direct Signal | competitor. | devwastaken wrote: | If they didn't use some random 'coin' no one has heard of I'd | be on board. They're trying to compete in a bad way. They | should simply just use Stripe and be done with it. People want | an alternative to facebook messaging and PayPal. They don't | want superfluous cryptos. | RL_Quine wrote: | Moxie Marlinspike is listed as an advisor of MobileCoin, so | there's some obvious financial connections between the two. | RL_Quine wrote: | _" Moxie, as an individual, is a paid technical advisor to | MobileCoin"_ | hiq wrote: | I think the end-goal is to provide privacy guarantees you | will never have with Stripe or other traditional payment | processors. | sudosysgen wrote: | You can't trust an app that is distributed through the | Google Play Store as a wallet with any kind of privacy | guarantee. | EMM_386 wrote: | > If they didn't use some random 'coin' no one has heard of | I'd be on board. | | The founder of Signal actually created MobileCoin. | | https://www.wired.com/story/mobilecoin-cryptocurrency/ | immy wrote: | Signal was a random 'messenger' at one point too. They needed | a fast (in seconds) private way to send money. There wasn't | one. Until now. | CodeGlitch wrote: | With all due respect your comment seems to be coming from an | extremely privileged position. In many parts of the world, | people do not have the luxury of basic banking, where storing | and sending money is fraught with risk due to corruption and a | lack of infrastructure. Take a look at M-PESA [1] for a "last- | gen" solution using SMS. | | I think what Signal is doing with MOB is pretty important work | for many non-western countries, and I wish them all the best. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa | sudosysgen wrote: | This is a very privileged position. | | Cryptocurrencies don't solve third world banking, at all. You | still get paid in fiat, which you then have to convert to | crypto (using a bank), and you will never be able to have | most people get paid in crypto because then the government | can't get taxes reliably (thus they will ban it). | dan-robertson wrote: | Crypto currencies don't really solve the problems with a lack | of banking infrastructure. Usually people need some way to | get actual physical cash (remember, we're talking about | places where people don't really have access to modern | banking systems, not places where most people have bank | accounts and credit cards) in and out of the system. It's a | nice idea if everything magically happens in your digital | system but I don't think that can happen without a credible | way to bootstrap it involving lots of moving physical cash | first. I don't think it's credible to hope for third party | exchanges or tiny local businesses to provide these services, | and I also don't think it is credible to expect people living | in these underdeveloped places to take on the risk of price | volatility in some random cryptocurrency. | ncmncm wrote: | Agree. It would be OK to make Signal able to integrate payment | systems and make this thing compatible with that or with any | other comm that implements the interface. Tying them together | is pernicious. | | Anyway Signal is itself pernicious by being tied to a phone | number and to Google Play services, and by being very choosy | about who gets ports. | | I had high hopes for Matrix, once they got E2EE, but they have | flubbed that by requiring a very heavyweight bounce server that | won't fit on (e.g.) your typical home router or super-cheap | cloud VM. Matrix should enable a place to keep your message | archive independent of the bounce server, and allow gatewaying | a non-public storage service via the lightweight bounce | service. | | But Element.io's business model is tied to heavy-weight bounce | service. | RL_Quine wrote: | Mastodon, Matrix and others suffer that issue greatly. You | can't really run single-user instances without running a | gigantic installation, when a minimal implementation of their | protocols should have no footprint to speak of. | lrvick wrote: | Dendrite is that minimal implementation to make single user | instances cheap. | summm wrote: | Yes, at some time in the future, but it is not usable | yet. | remirk wrote: | That was the case a few years ago. Matrix' server software | has improved a lot since then. It doesn't use much | resources anymore. Though there still is a large CPU spike | when I join a really large room (500+ users) for the first | time. | Arathorn wrote: | speaking as CEO of Element, our business model is _really_ | not tied to Synapse being heavyweight at all - just the | opposite. We provide Synapse hosting starting at $2 | /user/month, and so it's critical that running a server | (including sysadmin) costs us as little as possible in order | to be above water. We're not competing against self-hosters, | but catering to folks who aren't sysadmins and so want us to | host for them. | | And as others have said, Synapse really isn't that | heavyweight these days (thanks in part to the performance | improvements driven by Element!) | lrvick wrote: | Have you seen matrix p2p? | | Also anyone can run their own servers, and Dendrite can run | on very modest hardware like a Raspi. | ncmncm wrote: | Thank you, Dendrite is listed as "beta", and appears to | require Postgres? | bilal4hmed wrote: | Here is some info | https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/08/dendrite-is-entering- | beta | miloignis wrote: | Just as a quick note, I run Synapse (the heavyweight server, | not Dendrite the light-weight one!) for myself and a few | friends on a modest 1GB of RAM VPS with a few bridges and | have no problems. Looking forward to Dendrite getting | feature-parity and swapping over to be even lighter. | codethief wrote: | > Anyway Signal is itself pernicious by being tied to a phone | number and to Google Play services | | It's not tied to Google Play Services, you can download a | standalone version from signal.org. As for phone numbers, the | developers have been working on getting rid of them for a | while now - there's already a good amount of code on GitHub. | dang wrote: | " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other | people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._" | | " _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of | calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be | shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3._'" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | centimeter wrote: | If they weren't using this as an opportunity to pump some | shitcoin, this might make sense. Bitcoin Lightning integration | would be much less suspect, for example, because A) it's | already well established B) they're not going to make a quick | buck off it. | mikeyla85 wrote: | Lightning doesn't have privacy and Signal needs privacy. | leifg wrote: | What's the consensus function you use on the mobile coin | blockchain. Couldn't see if it's proof of work or proof of stake. | josh2600 wrote: | We use a modified version of the Stellar Consensus Protocol | that we reimplemented from scratch using Rust. | | https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of-MobileCoin/blob/maste... | << Page 81 is where you want to go. | eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: | So this does seem to use some voting mechanism instead of | scarcity through PoW. | | How do you prevent the sybil attack then if there is no | scarcity? | | I.e. what prevents an individual from spinning up 10 million | nodes to get more voting power? | josh2600 wrote: | Stellar is essentially a liquid democracy system similar to | DNS. The core proof at the heart of David Mazieres paper is | that in a densely interwoven graph, any set of nodes in a | quorum slice reaching consensus _is_ graph consensus. | Regarding Sybil, nodes define their own trust | relationships, so membership is open but not automatic. | [deleted] | eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: | > Regarding Sybil, nodes define their own trust | relationships, so membership is open but not automatic. | | Thanks for clarifying! | | So you're expecting people to | | - manually add peers to be able to use the network. | | - manually monitor the said peers for if they do | malicious transactions, and manually ban them if yes. | | Right? | | How is this supposed to work considering that: | | - most users won't care about manually adding peers. | They'll just add EVERYONE who offers to be added so they | can be done with it and use the system. | | - most users probably won't even understand what a | malicious transaction is in the first place. | | - the few who do will for sure not have the time to | monitor a network which does dozens or in the future even | thousands of transactions per second. | | This seems just humanly impossible, there's by no means | sufficient human time available to manually monitor a P2P | network's content if the said content is super boring and | complex. | | If it were a distributed social network you could expect | people to e.g. manually flag spam because using a social | network _implies_ reading the posts contained in it. | | But manually reviewing money which strangers send to each | other is boring as hell, who will do this? | crazypython wrote: | How does Stellar Consensus prevent double-spends? | | Imagine I have a private key to an address with 10 coins. | Imagine I spend the same amount of money (10 coins) on Mars | and Earth at the same time. There is a 10-lightminute gap | between Mars and Earth. Assume Mars and Earth have a similar | number of Stellar nodes. What happens in Stellar Consensus? | josh2600 wrote: | Stellar actually does nothing to prevent double-spends as | it is the consensus layer and not the ledger. The ledger | prevents double spends in mobilecoin by using a proof | called a "key image" which is part of CryptoNote | (https://bytecoin.org/old/whitepaper.pdf). Essentially, a | ring signature is produced by the user which says "one of | these N transactions belong to me" and the key image proves | that one of the members of the set is a valid transaction | without revealing which transaction was valid (and | preventing future reuse of the valid input). | fourstar wrote: | So essentially, this is a mashup between XMR (ring sigs) | and XLM (consensus protocol)? Why not use zk-proofs? | josh2600 wrote: | If you can find a way to do ZK-proofs that work in the | time constraints that we have (1-3 seconds end to end | transaction completion and finality), then we'll switch | to them. Right now this is the only way we could get the | performance we wanted. | eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: | I don't understand the "key image" cryptography, but I | can't fathom how any cryptography, no matter how smart it | is, could prevent the user from: | | 1) Creating a backup of their wallet on disk. | | 2) Sending their coins somewhere, but not broadcasting | the transaction to the network, instead storing it in a | file. | | 3) Restoring from the backup | | 4) Sending the coins to a different address = double | spending them. | | 5) Broadcasting the transactions in a very close timespan | to conduct the double-spend. | | The _network_ needs to prevent this by storing, in an | non-forge-able fashion such as PoW, which transaction | happened first. | | How does your system guarantee that? | lrvick wrote: | Signal is still centrally controlled and compiled by a single | entity and distributed only in an unsigned insecure form or in a | signed/verified manner only if you give up your privacy to | install with Google Play or the Apple store. | | Those that only run open source software like myself have no | secure way to run Signal short of compiling every release by hand | which is impractical. Moxie has stated he will not support anyone | but his team compiling or distributing Signal binaries so third | party signed builds via privacy focused app stores like F-Droid | are out. All builds must also use Signal centralized servers even | though that centralizes TCP/IP metadata, etc. | | Not to mention you need to show government ID to get a SIM to use | the Signal wallet for said private currency/messenger in 200 | countries. | | Secondly having a decentralized currency whose servers can only | run on Intel machines with Intel SGX is a very centralized supply | chain as well. | | A single supply chain attack on Intel microcode or related SGX | updates could run malicious code and game over for the currency | globally? A government that sees MobileCoin as a threat could | make Intel do this. | | With a SPOF on the supply chain of the only client people are | expected to use and another SPOF on the only hardware enclave | people are supposed to use for servers... decentralized is | technically true but not used in the same way as most other | projects that use that word. | | I will keep an eye on this experiment though, because there are | some unique ideas here which could have value should your trust | anchors expand beyond Intel and Signal. | hiq wrote: | > distributed only in an unsigned insecure form or in a | signed/verified manner only if you give up your privacy to | install with Google Play or the Apple store. | | > Those that only run open source software like myself have no | secure way to run Signal short of compiling every release by | hand which is impractical. | | Nope: https://signal.org/android/apk/ | stonesweep wrote: | You may be missing the subtle point - the APK provided is the | same one from Google Play, which includes the Google SDK | encumbered libraries (links? hooks? features?). If you run a | libre device without the Google Play store (non-Google | android build) then the software cannot function. The code | for the client is open source, but the act of compiling it | against the required Play store libraries encumbers the final | binary. F-Droid requires that all code compile without the | Google SDKs in order to be hosted (IIRC). | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | You are being a bit too subtle for many people. I think | most reading your post above are going to understand it as | claiming that the Signal APK downloadable from Signal's | website requires Google Play Services or the Play store in | order to run. That is not the case, as any LineageOS user | can tell you. | hiq wrote: | > If you run a libre device without the Google Play store | (non-Google android build) then the software cannot | function | | I think you mean either of two things: | | 1. running the APK they build on a device without Google | Service does not work | | 2. running the APK they build on a device means it's no | longer running only libre software | | 1. is not true, so I assume you mean 2. I guess that's | true, but in practice I think that the compiled dependency | doesn't do anything if you don't have the services on your | phone (don't quote me on that). It's not free software, but | it's still better than the competition. | stonesweep wrote: | I think it sort of floats in 2 territory and sort of | resembles the LGPL based kernel modules which require a | binary firmware blob to run (kind of, not exactly). In | order to create the APK, the code must compile against | the SDK and encumber it by binding to an API, however if | I understand this correctly in Android terms it means a | stub of non-free code is now inside your APK, instead of | say an external firmware blob. (I am not an Android coder | to know the subtle details here) | | (I'm aware that the code will try and use Google | services, then if it fails it falls back to websocket(?) | - so the actual Services don't have to be present, but | the compiled APK contains the non-free hooks to use it if | present? I tried to use the word encumbered to reflect | that) | AfouToPatisa wrote: | Even if an SGX attack does take place, tx's aren't recognized | as the system is secured with Cryptonote's ring signatures (1st | reply in FAQ | https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/mobilecoin) | | here too about 11mins in - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9afDQ_M5CU | codethief wrote: | The problem is: Signal already relies on SGX for lots of | other features (Signal PINs & Secure Value Recovery, contact | discovery etc. etc.) and these depend on SGX working as | advertized. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | >compiling every release by hand | | Clicking build in Android Studio? | ac29 wrote: | > Not to mention you need to show government ID to get a SIM to | use the Signal wallet for said private currency/messenger in | 200 countries. | | There are less than 200 countries in total, unless you get very | creative with states that are arent recognized more more than a | handful of other countries, like Abkhazia or Transnistria. | | You also dont need ID to buy SIM cards in the US, so I'm | curious on how valid this assertion is. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | The OP is broadly right. You now need to show ID to buy a SIM | in many EU countries and beyond (e.g. Chile, Russia or | Senegal). A copy of the ID is given to the state in order to | link your identity to the SIM card. Even if you bought a | prepaid SIM before this policy or law came in, the mobile | provider may pressure you into paying online or by card | instead of cash, so that your identity can be linked to the | SIM through your payment. | | I do wonder how long the US (or, for example, Finland) will | remain a holdout in this regard. | adamsvystun wrote: | I think you can argue that payment privacy is not as paramount as | message privacy and can be implemented with regular financial | mechanisms. Or at least such option should be given if you are | using your own cryptocurrency. | LockAndLol wrote: | I thought Session(1), a signal fork, was ridiculous for adding a | crypto currency, but now Signal is doing it too? | | I don't want this stuff in my messenger. It's supposed to send | messages, not money. This is just going to accelerate my | departure from Signal - or at least the official client. | | 1: https://getsession.org/ | airza wrote: | The technology is cool, but I don't really know if I want KYC | regulatory risk in my encrypted messaging client. I just want | italics. | lrvick wrote: | Then why use Signal at all? You had to have KYC to get a phone | number in most countries which you had to give to Signal which | could expose your location etc via tower pings to anyone you | communicate with unless you port it to a VoIP number (how many | know how to do that?) | | You also had to provide a phone number to get a Google or Apple | account to install Signal because anonymous signed install | methods are not supported, which moxie says is intentional to | collect analytics. | | Signal may have end to end encryption but being anonymous is a | clear non goal. | josh2600 wrote: | I don't think Signal has any plans to scan your driver's | license. What they've built is a non-custodial wallet (IE, they | can't help you if you lose your keys, and they have no ability | to authorize or deny a payment on your behalf). | airza wrote: | In my opinion a lot of the spicy regulatory issues around | coins with private transactions are still not fully realized | because none of them have mainstream adoption. The problem | here is that Signal's goal to succeed as a mainstream | encrypted messaging client could have the unpleasant side | effect of bringing this technology under regulatory scrutiny. | Hopefully things won't come to that, of course... | troquerre wrote: | You don't need to KYC as it's just a mobile wallet -- same with | all the other crypto wallets out there. I'd be surprised if | Signal integrated features in the future that require KYC. | frosted-flakes wrote: | KYC = Know Your Customer/Client. | m4lvin wrote: | It seems this was posted five days too late. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | I think Signal should not marry a single crypto-currency, or | intermediary. | | Add the feature, but come up with a solution that is currency | agnostic. | hiq wrote: | The arguments against federation would also apply to this | solution. Given that they don't like federation, it's logical | that they also reject this approach for their payment solution. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-06 23:00 UTC)