Hacker News Reader

Comment by skorpeon87 | Hacker News Reader

> So I’m not sure why Signal should drop them other than because of the general volatility in crypto.

The affiliation to a cryptoscheme casts the entirety of Signal in a disreputable light. Not least because it gets Signal tangled up in stories like this one.

View on HN

They should act to avoid guilt by association?

No one said anything about legal guilt. It's generally good practice not to associate with fraudsters if you care about your reputation though.

“Guilt by association” doesn’t imply legal guilt? It’s a common euphemism and it fits exactly what you’re describing.

Signal has often valued being technically correct over pandering to media narratives for marketing reasons.

Whats "technically correct"? You think making a money sending feature using a currency that has random 1000% swings from fraudsters is "technically correct"? It's fucking useless garbage is what it is. Good thing their users didn't buy into the fraud seeing how this scam has no volume (ironically enabling this scam).

Rage against it all you want, people are judged by the company they keep. Ideally not in court rooms, but in everyday life? Abso-fucking-lutely. You don't have to like it but that's how life works.

"Association" hardly seems like the correct term for marketing a fringe cryptocurrency to unsophisticated users/retail investors.

Moxie was a technical advisor for mobilecoin, helping people send money privately sounds like a noble pursuit to me. At least it has a real world use case + legitimate real world userbase/implementation. Most crypto companies don't have that.

I don't think a messenger should provide a way to transfer money. It is one reason I hate Facebook Messenger. I liked Signal more before then because of its focus on messaging.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com