After over a decade spent creating Signal, Moxie has departed to focus on new efforts.
After over a decade spent creating Signal, Moxie has departed to focus on new efforts.
After over a decade spent creating Signal, Moxie has departed to focus on new efforts. As the founder of Signal, the work he did and the organization he built are the reason Signal exists. We are infinitely grateful. He remains a friend and a core part of the Signal legacy ❤️🙏
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm cautiously optimistic that this isn't a warning sign. I can imagine wanting to do something new after spending so long working on one project, but if he left because things were straying from his vision of Signal that could be a bad sign.
As I recall he was the one behind the decision (for the built in wallet) to go with a privacy coin he had a stake in and not the very obvious choice of monero. As far as I'm concerned he's tainted goods.
To be honest, while crypto is probably the closest we have to an actually private payment option (Monero etc), I'm generally not a fan of it for this usage because unlike the rest of the app, it has a much steeper learning curve AND is a common target for scams, which makes it much less approachable for the average user. I love Signal because my mom can use it and I can trust that she's protected, but I would not recommend she tries using the payment option within it regardless of what coin they use because the rigamaroll of going to some exchange to buy it is already a dicey proposition.
I never thought of that, that's a really good point. I disliked anyway it because it was for one random currency where it's easy to just send a wallet address over Signal for whichever cryptocurrency you like.
He was also unwilling to allow other apps to interact with Signal servers, even if they supported a platform that he wasn't going to support. Good riddance to him.
I understand and value the idea of self-hosting or federation to decentralize services, but Signal is currently my most used chat app for the sole reason that I can tell a friend to go download it and it just works. Supporting self-hosted servers or federation doesn't necessarily mean that the UX has to be bad, but for small organizations I think the radical focus on a specific experience is the best way to make a good product, and if this is the sacrifice that was made so that we could have a simple, reliable, private messenger then I'm happy with that tradeoff.
As an example, chat protocols/implementations like Matrix have a lot of potential, but the foundational decisions around decentralization mean that it takes way more work to make it seamless to use. You can't download a client and start chatting immediately, you need to think about what server to connect to, and that's already enough of a barrier to make it a no-go for a lot of the folks I regularly chat with who just don't care enough about privacy/FOSS to put in the effort.
Signal do have a habit of removing features people like and completely ignoring user feedback. It's still the best messaging app, but that could change quickly if they are not careful.
It's still the best messaging app
Not really, it's filled with random bugs. For example the call functionality is constantly breaking. You can watch the chat log, the other person calls you, waits untill the call times out, and then you get a message that you missed a call and nothing before that. Sometimes it doesn't even send that message, or the notification doesn't show up until you open the app.
I've never even heard of bugs that bad in other apps. Hell, even element works more consistently, and it's the current mascot of "it might become good in a few years".
It's because it's main feature is privacy. It's constantly being looked at by threat actors. All of the major nation states are constantly trying to compromise it. That's why features keep getting removed.
Things straying from his vision could also be a good sign. Change doesn't necessarily equates to bad.
It's not like his vision was without flaws. He's had disagreements with the people from Matrix, for example.
Meh, signal seems like a worse version of matrix to me, is there any reason to prefer it?
It is just closer to WhatsApp. What Matrix does, especially with regards to enabling true multi-device support, is quite complex overall and sometimes causes issues with keys for decrypting messages not arriving on all devices. Signal is more limited but it just works a lot better. Small but important extra: Signal supports fully encrypted voice and video chats.
Full disclosure: I personally also prefer Matrix because I use it with multiple devices. I don't want to install desktop apps for these services and Element runs in the browser while Signal does not.
Ah, so, what it really seems to come down to is that since it's centralized, it's easier to make it work for everyone, no?
Being centralized isn't the only reason, but basically yes. The concept behind the protocol is simpler because your decryption keys only ever live on one device. You don't really have the entire trust (and key sharing) model for devices that Matrix has. Signal's desktop app works very similarly to WhatsApp where your single main device needs to be connected at least intermittently for "guest" sessions to be able to send and receive messages. I haven't used Signal desktop though, that was just the impression I got from it. Would make sense though because WhatsApp is allegedly borrowing from Signal's protocol quite a bit.
You don't need your main device connected to send/receive on the Signal desktop app.
Well for one thing matrix clients on mobile are...not the best. Element X is looking promising, but it's currently still in beta. Element misorders messages and crashes often, and most other clients are not as feature complete. Whereas in my experience Signal tends to just work. Plus for the average person it makes for a dead simple drop in replacement to WhatsApp or iMessage. Yes, the phone number requirement has led to issues with governments just blocking the sign up SMSes, but that is a tradeoff they make for convenience.
Matrix also leaks more metadata in comparison to Signal (this is just how decentralization works). Not to mention that the recent vulnerabilities seem to suggest (in my opinion at least) that matrix cryptography is not as battle tested as the Signal protocol.
Besides the observed implementation and specification errors, these vulnerabilities highlight a lack of a unified and formal approach to security guarantees in Matrix. Rather, the specification and its implementations seem to have grown “organically” with new sub-protocols adding new functionalities and thus inadvertently subverting the security guarantees of the core protocol. This suggests that, besides fixing the specific vulnerabilities reported here, the Matrix/Megolm specification will need to receive a formal security analysis to establish confidence in the design.
Real world example: The university I study at promoted matrix as a way for students to chat at the start of the semester, and pushed them to use Element. Practically no one uses it, but I've met a few people who do chat with Signal.
Any indication for this? Genuinely curious!
No specific indication, but as the organization matures and brings on new folks it's always a little uneasy to see the old guard leave. Only time will tell!
I remember some news about he getting too buddy-buddy with Facebook, it wouldn't surprise me at all.