HAPPENING: SIGNAL IS GOING TO INTRODUCE USERNAMES TO THEIR APP ACCORDING TO THEIR SOURCE CODE

>still centralized
>voice server still unreleased
>still requires a phone number
Yeah, I don't think Signal is going to make it.

Signal is for the masses. I you need super duper anonymous messaging go eslewhere.

>>still centralized
Are you retarded?
>phone number
There is about one thousand ways of how to circumvent this.

There's some interesting discussion in the thread OP linked to.
Usernames are nice to have, but there are still many open questions, e.g. will your contacts that you added via phone number be able to see your @username? Because then, if they see your @username online somewhere, they can deduce that it's you.

How2getaroundphonenumber

voip number

>find a landline, any landline, which can receive messages
>get a SIM card without a contract (here in my country every corner grocery sells them)
>buy a SIM card without a contract over the internet
>use spoofbox.com/en/tool/trash-mobile or any similar service
>use some company phone
Those are from top of my head.

>Are you retarded?
The official Signal network does not federate with anything and Moxie doesn't want it to either. Additionally, only the official Signal build (with proprietary Google stuff) is allowed to connect to it. Vast majority of Signal protocol users are locked in to the official build and server, anyone else is unable to communicate with them (or have voice calls at all, since voice server isn't published).
>There is about one thousand ways of how to circumvent this.
And they all require a phone number. Dumbass.

>naming something after a commonly used word
>can't even google it properly because of that without spending money on getting your results up higher in google searches
Never heard of it until OP's thread. They must have the worse marketing team ever.

does TextSecure sound better?

>And they all require a phone number. Dumbass.
No need to use yours, dummy. >centralized
So yes, you are retarded. Are you aware there is nothing stored on their servers that could somehow endanger you? Not even keys are stored on the servers, but on the client-side. Only issue remaining are messages being physically on phones of people communicating with each other and that can be solved by either deleting them right after or by setting up messages to be automatically erased.
>with proprietary Google stuff
Old news, it's been more than two years since this was corrected. No google stuff there anymore.

There is a reason why Signal and not any other app is used by glowniggery and recommended by Schneier. And Snowden.

>No need to use yours
Oh, great idea, just give someone else the ability to revoke your chat account!
>So yes, you are retarded. Are you aware there is nothing stored on their servers […]
That's not what centralized means or implies. Federated services can also store stuff on each individual server. The issue is that Signal isn't an open network and is fully under the control of one company; if they decide to kick someone out, blacklist a country or close down the servers, you can't use the service anymore.
>No google stuff there anymore.
You still aren't allowed to use forks (e.g. LibreSignal) to connect to the official network.

>still centralized
That's a requirement for privacy tho...
>voice server still unreleased
Don't use them if you're paranoid
>still requires a phone number
Not a problem
>Yeah, I don't think Signal is going to make it.
Stop thinking, it's not suited for you

>Oh, great idea, just give someone else the ability to revoke your chat account!
Jesus Christ, at least go read about something before you start spouting drivel about it. You have no idea how it works. There is no "revoke" whatsoever, the number there is just a identifier.
>You still aren't allowed to use forks (e.g. LibreSignal) to connect to the official network.
And stop pushing the goalpost you imbecile.
>The issue is that Signal isn't an open network and is fully under the control of one company
It's not when the whole thing is completely opensource and repeatedly audited.
>if they decide to kick someone out, blacklist a country or close down the servers
That never happened by the way.
>kick someone
From how the software is built, that would be completely useless and null step.

Stop talking about shit you have no idea about.

And I forgot:
>LibreSignal
>Latest commit on Nov 22, 2016
What kind of faggot you are?

>That's a requirement for privacy tho
So decentralized services (e.g. Jami, Tox, etc.) can't be private? If anything, serverless protocols can ideally be more private, since they don't leak metadata if implemented properly. On Signal, the server always knows who talks to whom and when.

Tell me what happens when another Signal app is configured with the same phone number then. Surprise: it gives the identifier to the new user and all your contacts send messages to them (assuming they ignore the private key change, like most normalfags do).
>stop pushing the goalpost
It's still in the same place. A proper chat network must let you use your own clients and servers.
>opensource
The voice chat server too?
>audited
Still gives them control over the network, letting them deny access to anyone they want.
>From how the software is built, that would be completely useless and null step.
If they deny server connectivity to a Signal user, then that Signal user cannot talk to other Signal users anymore.

You two don't seem to realize that the issue with Signal isn't whether it has good privacy or security but that it is a centralized service under the control of a single corporation. In order for a general chat service to be acceptable, it HAS to be decentralized (distributed, openly federated, etc.) or else you're at the mercy of whoever owns the walled garden of communication. Consider the single most widespread communication protocol: email. It's decentralized and likely wouldn't have survived this long otherwise.

Perhaps it had something to do with Moxie deciding to forbid them to connect to the official Signal network?

>it gives the identifier to the new user and all your contacts send messages to them
No, it doesn't. You are straight up lying now and that's fucking gay. Why are you talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about? What's the point here?
>It's still in the same place
It's beyond original debate and it's just you trying to be obnoxious.
>voice chat
It's open source. It's been audited too. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? And let me quote:
>"NSA deemed Signal's encrypted voice calling component on its own as a "major threat" to its mission, and when used in conjunction with other privacy tools such as Cspace, Tor, Tails, and TrueCrypt was ranked as "catastrophic", leading to a "near-total loss/lack of insight to target communications, presence."
>letting them deny access to anyone they want.
Even if they done that (they are not) it would be a pointless exercise, because of how the whole thing is built.
>If they deny server connectivity to a Signal user, then that Signal user cannot talk to other Signal users anymore.
They are not doing that, again. And even if they did, you just pick new number and you roll again. Wew, so hard. Fucking idiot.

>but that it is a centralized service under the control of a single corporation
I think you are having issues determining with what is centralized and what is not. You also seem to have issues with priorities. If you seriously consider form before function, then you are a larper faggot and everything you say is useless from the get go. Again, it's completely open source, it's been audited (you can do it yourself) and the fact it is used by actual real-deal glowniggery is a proof that it serves it's purpose well for now.
>walled garden
Someone call the tard wrangler.

It's been around for like 10 years faggot.

>wire bad
Elaborate

My condolences about your lack of comprehension. I hope you get better soon.

Nice argument

hi moxie, welcome to 4chink

Where?

Cool, I guess.
Could be interesting to have another, pseudonymous option, besides my phone number which I don’t really want to give to anyone.
But I doubt it’ll do much. For absolute privacy it’s still shit if it needs the phone number anyways and for wider adoption it won’t do much.
Afraid that signal will always befuhr better but less used WhatsApp

Is Wire even open-source?

Let me google that for you...
Ha, my lucky day, first entry:
support.wire.com/hc/en-us/articles/210037365-Is-Wire-Open-Source-

bump
If they actually add usernames I'll drop GNU Jami

Attached: Screenshot_20190823-225945_Jami.png (1440x2560, 77K)

I hope this won't be "one universal username for everyone you talk to". I'd rather be able to show some people one username and other people another username.

>0 conversations
why ? :(

because i've got no one to talk to even though i obsess over secure messaging apps

Attached: 1563229619372.jpg (1280x720, 51K)

hehe, are you me?!
Although I managed to get 6 friends to use my xmpp server.

>friends
look at this normoid

in my shitty "first" country you need to give them your id card

lol

By first country you mean a country that was first to you, not a first world country.

lmao, fuck off (((moxie))), you will never get the sweet chatapp shekels, too late too bad

>There is about one thousand ways of how to circumvent this.

implying it is my responsibility to get around shitty privacy intrusions
or you know, just skip the entire void shit and use an app that has a userbase

if only moxie would come out and say we want to control the app and make money off of you dumb fucks, I could respect that, but he sneaks around and tries to shill his security no one cares about like the jew he is

t. asshurt cia agent

>still requires a phone number

NOT happening

fuck off

bump

Stop samefagging all over this thread you hopeless cretin.

see

>actively participating in a thread is samefagging
i dont think so