[illustriousbear]

99% of the opposition to Signal integrating cryptocurrency payment seems to be from people who generally disagree with the idea of cryptocurrencies (the article has this position). These arguments of course are veiled as keeping the Signal app "pure" and focused on encrypted messaging. I've rarely seen people kick up this kind of fuss with other messaging features so it just reeks of being disingenuous.

At least be honest and just say that you disagree with cryptocurrencies, instead of dancing around it with other strange arguments / conspiracies about government attention.

[NovemberWhiskey]

You can both think cryptocurrencies are a stupid idea and believe that introducing payments into Signal is a bad idea for other reasons. Your assumption that one belief is simply a fig-leaf for the other is not justified.

Based on my personal experience, people who are serious about cryptography from a public-policy perspective are likely to have both of those opinions.

[illustriousbear]

My point is completely justified when you read the article attached (and much of the comments here).

[NovemberWhiskey]

I'm sure you think that; would you be prepared to explain why? I have read the article.

[plzbo]

It's not just opposition to cryptocurrencies per se, the choice of Mobilecoin is also problematic[0]. On top of that you have to trust Intel.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348

[growse]

> It's not just opposition to cryptocurrencies per se, the choice of Mobilecoin is also problematic[0]. On top of that you have to trust Intel.

> [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26715348

No you don't - no-one's forcing you to use it.

At the end of the day, you have to trust someone, whether it's a tech vendor, a software project lead, or even the person you're conversing with. What's important is that you get to continue to consciously exercise that choice.

I choose to use signal, and have no interest in this random crypto nonsense thingie, so I'll choose to not use that bit.

[plzbo]

> No you don't - no-one's forcing you to use it.

I was phrasing that unclear, I meant that you have to trust Intel if you use Mobilecoin.

> What's important is that you get to continue to consciously exercise that choice.

Why wouldn't you be able to exercise that choice?

[growse]

> I was phrasing that unclear, I meant that you have to trust Intel if you use Mobilecoin.

Ah, fair. I think you could also argue that you have to trust Intel if you use Signal anyway.

> Why wouldn't you be able to exercise that choice?

I'm not saying you can't (unlike some), but I think it's worth underlining the point that "trusting nobody" is rarely, if ever an option. So in a world where you end up having to trust someone, being able to continuously exercise that is important.

[plzbo]

> Ah, fair. I think you could also argue that you have to trust Intel if you use Signal anyway.

Agreed :)

> So in a world where you end up having to trust someone, being able to continuously exercise that is important.

Also agree here. I would prefer if you could minimize the number of actors you have to trust though.

[fwn]

> 99% of the opposition to Signal integrating cryptocurrency payment seems to be from people who generally disagree with the idea of cryptocurrencies

Most crypto projects are a scam, but some are great. I do hold bitcoin since I started doing research on cryptocurrencies for my bachelor thesis on that topic back in 2013.

Adding cryptocurrency capabilities to Signal is a very bad idea for many reasons.

It has almost no practical value for users of Signal. Those who want to use a wallet for the currency of their choice can always download one and probably already did so. That's the superior solution because it's not just coin-agnostic, but promotes choice: if it's not a good wallet they can change the app without suffering though network effects, something they can't do with their messenger.

The regulatory environment for messaging is drastically different from the regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies. The latter is less consistent, less clear and still faces high regulatory risks in some markets. The first one has clear advocates and strong theoretical backing in all democracies while the second is still on very shaky grounds with varying degrees of good will in society. I have yet to read an argument why stretching one product to fit both environments might be a great idea, or even just a prudent choice of risk management.

It is hurting Signals reputation, which is Signals main selling point. For several reasons:

That direction surprised many people as Signal is far from a feature complete messenger. Almost everyone agrees that there is real work to do regarding, for example, multi-device support, history portability or the decoupling of phone number and identity. A wallet for an almost unheard cryptocurrency might feel random to many, given the many features users are still waiting for.

Another reason for why this feature is hurting Signals reputation is that cryptocurrencies, just as you said in your comment, are controversial for many. Some projects are more, others are less controversial and MobileCoin - for now - seems to be in the more suspicious camp.

It's generally, in branding, not a winning strategy to tie your good brands to your bad brands. You would want to keep them neatly separated until they are both successful just so that you can drop your less successful brands without putting your winners at risk. ... and you would do that despite believing in the success of all your projects.