[skrebbel]

The argument is "this app, which promises privacy and security in ways I do not have the skills to verify, is made by people who also think cryptocurrencies are a good idea". That is a pretty compelling argument to people who think cryptocurrencies are all about scams and/or useless pollution (a sizeable portion of society). It suggests that the people behind Signal may not be as trustworthy as they're made out to be.

Whether or not a bunch of competent security gurus on HN assure us that yes, Signal is still great and no, Moxie didn't go nuts, doesn't really influence the validity of that argument outside tech circles. Don't forget that we've all spent years training our aunts and nephews to not trust the companies that make the apps they use. It's a major marketing mistake and they should've known better.

Also, ApplePay has nowhere near the same stigma associated with it as cryptocurrencies do, I think your comparison is silly.

FWIW, if Signal was new today and someone would pitch me "a super secure messaging app with built-in crypto payments" I'd not easily get enthusiastic. I've been trained to treat any pitch that includes the word "crypto" or "token" with high suspicion, because of the crap magnets those technologies have been historically. Too many people's "get rich quick" schemes sounded exactly like that a few years ago.

[c6401]

>or useless pollution Given the energy needed just for one transaction the currently popular ones are actually about useless pollution. It's not like bittorrent when it's not a technological problem but rather copyright owners agenda. In case of bitcoin, it is actually unsustainable technologically as a currency (as opposed to an asset). I get that cryptocurrencies can be efficient but not the ones that are popular right now.

[DyslexicAtheist]

> It suggests that the people behind Signal may not be as trustworthy as they're made out to be.

trust only works in retrospect (it can't be extended into the future to a party simply because they make a promise)

all such relationships have an expiry date (since as the trusted party evolves or needs to reinvent itself to satisfy shareholders). what can prevent this are bullet-proof contracts (that's not how people make decisions though - they never read the fine-print, review it when it changes and instead work on gut-feeling and emotions).

putting your trust into a brand/product is always going to eventually hurt you. A product having reached the size of Signal will most certainly throw part of it's user-base to the curb if it thinks it's held back by their opinions/goals.

The disconnect is people thinking Signal owes them something (when everybody actually used it for free until now).

[noja]

> trust only works in retrospect

Nonsense. Trust provides a basis for present and future dealings.

[DyslexicAtheist]

please get in touch by email, I have a business proposal for you.

I highly recommend Robert Cialdini before making opinionated comments on trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...

[user-the-name]

No, because, and this is very crucial:

I don't trust you.

[DyslexicAtheist]

sounds like you did not understand that this was rhetorical?

[user-the-name]

I understood that perfectly, and I pointed out to you that your rhetorical argument is invalid.

[jeltz]

Not everybody. The people who donated to the project owes Moxie not using their money to get rich off a pump and dump scheme.