The Flash letter was vindicated, but I do not see how the Moxie blog post was vindicated.
Unless you claim that federated E2EE is impossible, I believe you cannot claim that it has been vindicated. But I could be wrong.
The Flash letter was vindicated, but I do not see how the Moxie blog post was vindicated.
Unless you claim that federated E2EE is impossible, I believe you cannot claim that it has been vindicated. But I could be wrong.
Signal's choices optimize usability of E2EE messaging for the masses.
Again: you can get past this stuff, and Matrix will. But Matrix is going to get through this because their use cases (more or less: replace IRC and Slack) are forgiving. Signal's aren't.
My gripe isn't that HN users refuse to tough out Signal's rough edges; I certainly don't ask my own family to use Signal to talk to me (I use Signal for things that matter, and little else). My gripe is that HN people who should know better don't seem to respect, or at least understand, the painful decisions that Signal made to support its use cases, and instead write weird little essays about how Moxie Marlinspike, the "brilliant cryptographer", built Signal this way because it was fun. It doesn't look super fun to me.
Kind of hard to claim they've done it given their current level of adoption.
Well... yes, actually. Governments use a lot of things that don't have widespread adoption outside of governmental use cases.
If your goal is to build for that market -- for environments with very specific needs -- then you're doing a great job. But governmental use isn't the ringing endorsement that you seem to think, because it has no bearing on actual widespread adoption.
Whatever lesson you want to derive from this technical trade-off is up to you, but yeah the psychobabble about Moxie is absolutely tiresome.
The devs will tell you that requiring every feature to be E2EE will slow down adoption too much, that can always be added later as another MSC (Matrix Spec Change).
> The devs will tell you that requiring every feature to be E2EE will slow down adoption too much, that can always be added later as another MSC (Matrix Spec Change).
No?
https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/254...
Or is that out of date and there is a new proposal with encryption?
I understand that the core team is busy but if big problems like this could be pointed out early it could save a lot of time all around.
Please be precise.
This is probably the most annoying thing about HN lately, the insistence on pretending that only end to end encryption matters.
Meanwhile we see end-to-end encrypted solutions like WhatsApp being cheered forward but ultimately failing badly because all incentives are aligned against security.
I hope you prove Moxie wrong, and once my business is off the ground, I'd like to contribute financially to that end.