they think because he inherited a recovering economy, that he himself had some major part in it.

as usual, devs are lost in implementing ludicrously complex scenarios for threat models that touch but a percentile of users, instead of implementing functionality that’s normal everywhere else.

as usual, users are lost in complaining about a privacy-centered application prioritizing on privacy-centered solutions, instead of using the hundreds of other already insecure applications that are normal everywhere else.

people really will complain about anything. It’s like progress means nothing, unless a fully working solution is available day 1, it’s completely worthless. bff

What is the use case for it?

The same use case as any crypto - to use as currency and pay debts.

Seems kind of pointless and a lot more tedious than just a bank transfer.

The same can be said of every crypto which doesn’t hit any kind of adoption.

Why does signal include crypto nonsense in their app (I like crypto, but just can’t see any reason why it should be integrated in the app)

It aligns with Signal’s mission statement to “Protect free expression and enable secure global communication through open source privacy technology.” [1]. The reason it was integrated into the app was to support crypto that was “easy to use”. The same way cash provides privacy by not allowing third parties to see what you’re doing, they believe(d) that enabling a privacy preserving crypto wallet would further “protect free expression”.

I’m sad that signal does not have support for 3rd party open source clients that could remove such features.

It’s not not enabled by default and makes up for (based on github commits and pulling a random number out of my ass based on my continue following of Signal’s development) less than 1% of development work since it was introduced.

Why not add support for monero instead?

Monero did not meet the technical requirements that the Signal developers were looking for at the time. Signal has commented that they would consider adding other crypto, as long as it meets the technical requirements - which I don’t have so can’t source unfortunately.

[1] https://signalfoundation.org/en/

Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can make money on it. Failure is the goal.

Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can make money on it further exploit the working class. Failure is the goal.

Although you’re right, I like to call out what it will do to everyone so it’s more explicit and will hopefully click in people’s minds.

Trump’s is Putin’s puppet. He’s set to destroy whatever he can.

Happens more than we’d like to believe. The mans dad wasn’t actually even dead in the case linked below. The policy will continue to make these mistakes until the consequences of their failures comes directly out of their pay.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-01/fontana-police-coerced-false-murder-confession-with-lies

Signal is completely open source and auditable by anyone: https://github.com/signalapp

if you were to create your own clone, it would not interoperate with the real one.

The FBI can’t just force them to add malicious code. A bad actor could try to contribute bad code, but Signal’s devs would likely catch it.

Lacking end-to-end encryption does not mean it lacks any encryption at all, and that point seems to escape most people.

Not using end-to-end encryption is the equivalent of using best practice developed nearly 30 years ago [1] and saying “this is good enough”. E2EE as a default has been taking off for about 10 years now [2], that Telegram is going into 2025 and still doesn’t have this basic feature tells me they’re not serious about security.

To take it to its logical conclusion you can argue that Signal is also “unencrypted” because it needs to be eventually in order for you to read a message. Ridiculous? Absolutely, but so is the oft-made opine that Telegram is unencrypted.

Ridiculous? Yes, you’re missing the entire point of end-to-end encryption, which you immediately discredit any security Telegram wants to claim:

The difference is that Telegram stores a copy of your chats that they themselves can decrypt for operational reasons.

Telegram (and anyone who may have access to their infrastructure, via hack or purchase) has complete access to view your messages. This is what E2EE prevents. With Telegram, someone could have access to all your private messages and you would never know. With E2EE someone would need to compromise your personal device(s). One gives you zero options to protect yourself against the invasion of your privacy, the other lets you take steps to protect yourself.

the other hand, if you fill your Telegram hosted chats with a whole load of benign crap that nobody could possibly care about and actually use the “secret chat bullshit” for your spicier chats then you have plausible deniability baked right in.

The problem here is that you should not be mixing secure contexts with insecure ones, basic OPSEC. Signal completely mitigates this by making everything private by default. The end user does not need to “switch context” to be secure.

[1] Developed by Netscape, SSL was released in 1995 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1.0,_2.0,_and_3.0

[2] Whatsapp gets E2EE in 2014, Signal (then known as TextSecure, was already using E2EE) - https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/

Telegram, for all their security claims, is basically not actually encrypted at all.

I’ll be honest, not a lot of pros to using Firefox if you don’t care about using the best adblocker (uBlock origin). That said, if you haven’t tried it recently, you should give it a shot. I would recommend installing uBlock Origin and Dark Reader (if you like your pages dark) for the best experience.

It’s not as fast as Chrome (not noticeable on newer devices) but I personally disagree with giving Google so much power over the web, so I’m ideologically opposed to using anything based on Chromium or not open source, so my options are limited.

anything specific that firefox lacks that is keeping you on chrome?