I am a little confused as to why a blockchain was necessary here? Since Telegram is a centralized platform, couldn't they just roll their own "usernames" which they already do.
I think sites like Discord just assume you'll install the app and that browser users are just boomers or the 0.1% who are more security+privacy oriented.
Is there any decent lean client for Discord? Chat only, no voice or whatnot.
I don't think so. When you own a lot of crypto, and have lots of real dollars (Pavel has lots of real dollars!), you can manipulate price a little bit.
In 2019/2020 Telegram had to give investors all their money back, and the new TON project started without venture capital with a value of 0$. It's now 1.84$.
If their market makers are sophisticated enough, they will create enough liquidity grabs to sell telegram's TON bags over time for a nice sum.
I think they are aiming for creating a market + "eco system" similar to ETH.
Sigh.
Charge users directly or GTFO.
Seriously. If the product is "very secure messaging," then come right out and say "very secure messaging costs money, pay up."
Doing anything -- ANYTHING else lets me know they're not serious about the mission.
It's a typical freemium model. I'd subscribe if I were certain that my money won't be going to Russia.
Not a great way to monetize in one of the larger markets.
The networking libraries may be fine. The UI could be completely rebuilt.
(Sadly, I don't have a ton of cash, or even a ton of time, to dedicate to such things.)
Telegram launched a silly username auction that I won't link here. It essentially turns usernames into NFTs.
They need to make money somehow? Not really an issue for users who don't care about unique usernames.
I really hate being forced to invent a nickname and be hard-glued to it forever.
Similar to how ICQ low digits used to be sold.
Private keys as a form of identity can't possibly work in the real world.
Because you just said people lose their passwords all the time. So then what?
Unlike private keys they can also enter them in other sites, reuse them, and get phished and much more.
But yes, private keys bad! because they are cryptography and cryptography is crypto and crypto is scams and grift and there is a whole new cargo cult we have to be in now…
But if it's a private key, you lose it an it's game over. You have to create a new identity and start over with everything that was tied to your old one. Worse yet, if you leak your private key, you can't stop other people impersonating you.
Also, everything you said about resetting passwords can be done for resetting private keys too. The difference is that you don’t go around reusing it and typing it into phishing sites.
And if you think getting access to an account where you are totally butt naked and forgot the password is normal, I have a million gmail users who would love your wisdom.
With a government-issued identity document.
The trouble is, of course, that this organization can have corrupt employees issue the credentials to anyone if the amount of (social or moneyary) capital to be stolen is large.
And furthermore, the credentials like an identity document can be trivially copied and presented online, by anyone you ever presented it to. So can credit cards.
Identity Theft is quite common around the world since many organizations allow people to make accounts over the internet, without even notifying your phone about it.
And finally, by trusting the government with your very identity, you give them the power to encroach further on your privacy:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/29/california-legislators-s...
https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/28/online_safety_bill_do...
Since you are against relying on cryptography for authentication and instead prefer to rely on the government to supply your very identity, I suspect you wouldn’t have a problem with requiring a passport to use Facebook. But perhaps you’d have a problem with what they will do NEXT once everyone is required to collect this information from you. After all, “crypto bros” are just about ponzi schemes right?
Send a QR code or a link that can be used only once.
Why have an identifier that any number of people can use to contact you?
I most often have to spell my contact details in a voice phone call because my primary job is to communicate to live people all over the world, not to code. Believe it or not but people actually call my office desk phone regularly (although I always prefer email if possible). Even in the IT sector (let alone administrative tasks, healthcare, utilities, etc), whenever you need a rack in a datacenter, new servers or whatever you often are meant to submit your phone number on their website and then they call you. Some very big Internet and datacenter operators don't advertise any ways to contact them other than by phone, some would publish an email or a contact form but ignore you until you call them.
> Why have an identifier that any number of people can use to contact you?
The same as the above.
It still covers a lot of mundane communication cases.
No worries, I'll do it for you: https://fragment.com
Source: https://www.telegram.org/blog/topics-in-groups-collectible-u...
To answer your question - the point of a blockchain would be a universal and uncensorable key store the Telegram client can point back towards. The fact that Telegram is centralized is less important when messages are encrypted. It would still in theory offer a way to bootstrap connections with people that is less vulnerable to censorship than relying on a central server, but I don't know and won't speculate more on the details of the specific blockchain they are using.
Telegram, now with integrated scamweb™!