[moxie]

> Moxie has threatened to shut LibreSignal down if they allow LibreSignal users to message normal Signal users, and refused to even discuss alternative solutions.

Please cite this. To my knowledge I never threatened anything, and your comment is a response to a quote from the discussion about LibreSignal, where I suggest that they submit a PR with the functionality they desire to Signal. Is that not an alternative?

> He also uses the GCM library from Google, which pulls in several analytics libraries into the APK

Could you cite this as well? Here's the entire POM file for the version of the GCM library we use:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <project xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd" xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> <groupId>com.google.android.gms</groupId> <artifactId>play-services-gcm</artifactId> <version>8.1.0</version> <packaging>aar</packaging> <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>com.google.android.gms</groupId> <artifactId>play-services-base</artifactId> <version>8.1.0</version> <scope>compile</scope> <type>aar</type> </dependency> </dependencies> </project>

A single dependency. If you follow it, the only transitive dependency is the supportv4 library. Where are the "several" analytics libraries?

> (And in addition to that, Moxie even refuses to allow any distribution that doesn’t come with full analytics, which is extremely user hostile.)

What do you mean by "full analytics?" Is there something user hostile about having an aggregate count of the number of users you have on what platforms, so that you can develop and deploy software accordingly? About being able to receive crash reports when users choose to submit them so that you can fix their problems?

[kuschku]

> Please cite this.

I’m sorry, what was this entire discussion then supposed to mean? https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

If they can’t fork it while still using your servers, and you refuse to allow federation, how the FUCK is it open in any way?

How are users supposed to be able to verify the software running on their own systems when you only allow binaries compiled by yourself to communicate with your users, abusing the lock-in effect?

> Could you cite this as well?

Have you actually read the code that gets compiled in when you depend on play-services-base and play-services-gcm?

As I happen to have reversed all of it to write an open source library for GCM, I have. And let me tell you, most of the code in there is "measurement"-code.

> What do you mean by "full analytics?"

Distributing through any means where the user can get the app without being required to be fully tracked by the Google Play Services?

You only distribute through the Play Store, which doesn’t fully work with microG at the moment, requiring users to install spyware on their devices.

[uph]

> If they can’t fork it while still using your servers, and you refuse to allow federation, how the FUCK is it open in any way?

What makes you think you have a right to demand federation? Run your own server if you don't like how they're doing it. You have access to the source under a Free Software license https://github.com/WhisperSystems but of course you don't want to actually do any work, you want to complain about what other people do because they don't do it in the exact way you want it done for free.

> How are users supposed to be able to verify the software running on their own systems when you only allow binaries compiled by yourself to communicate with your users, abusing the lock-in effect?

https://whispersystems.org/blog/reproducible-android/

> You only distribute through the Play Store, which doesn’t fully work with microG at the moment, requiring users to install spyware on their devices.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12689352

[kuschku]

Also, regarding

> but of course you don't want to actually do any work, you want to complain about what other people do because they don't do it in the exact way you want it done for free.

Nah, I don't spend months of my own free time maintaining an open source IRC app, and working on creating tools to make IRC easier for users to use.

I don't actually spend time making open chat systems more useable to users, sure.

That accusation from you doesn't belong at all on HN, and is not only a personal attack, but also wrong.

I could just run a Signal fork with my own servers tomorrow, but one of my goals is to allow users to have one single place where they can send a message to a user, and it will arrive. No matter what service the other user uses, what app, what chat system, if they're on an obscure 20 people IRC network, on Signal, WhatsApp, etc.

My ideal goal would be a universal, federated protocol, but even having libraries for each protocol with a unified API would make things already easier.

And Moxie is fighting for the opposite.

He fights against any compatibility, and suggests I tell my mother to install yet another chat app, ignoring that her phone can't even install Signal in the first place because it only has 3MB of useable memory, left.

You and Moxie actively tell people to create more, and less interconnected, chat networks.

How the fuck is that going to help?

If everyone uses a different secure app, that doesn't help at all! People will just use the systems everyone has (case in point: usage of SMS in the US, or WhatsApp everywhere else), and thereby you ensure no one gets any security.

So stop insulting people you don't know, and claiming untrue motives to be theirs, just so you can justify your actions.

[uph]

> My ideal goal would be a universal, federated protocol, but even having libraries for each protocol with a unified API would make things already easier.

And Moxie is fighting for the opposite.

Yet here you are, pissed off that your goals don't align with someone elses. Use your open source IRC app to talk to your mom and I'll use Signal to talk with mine. No one is forcing you to do anything. Considering your goals and ideas are superior surely whatever you're suggesting will become the one service everyone uses, problem solved.

[kuschku]

> surely whatever you're suggesting will become the one service everyone uses, problem solved.

That shows even more how much you misunderstand the entire market even worse than Google does.

An app can’t win because it is the best, but only through network lock-in effects (which Moxie tries to use for Signal, too) and marketing combined.

[kuschku]

> What makes you think you have a right to demand federation? Run your own server if you don't like how they're doing it.

Because Moxie claims he wants to change mainstream communication?

You don't revolutionise mainstream communication by fragmenting your user base even more.

If every fork did what Moxie suggested, and create a completely new network, then soon there will be only a handful of users per network at all.

And users will just go back to Facebook or WhatsApp.

The claimed aim of Moxie is that everyone uses the same, partially safe, chat system.

The only merit Signal has over XMPP is that it aims to be used by everyone, including your grandma, trading adoption vs safety.

If that is the aim, you have to ensure it also is 100% compatible.

If you directly suggest to fragment the userbase, you are destroying the one single merit Signal has over XMPP with OMEMO.

Because then it becomes just another protocol for crypto nerds (and a worse one, in fact, considering the inclusion of Google code).

So, explain to me, how is fragmenting the userbase in any way conductive to the claimed aim?