pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 6 Oct \ parent \ on: "I'd quicker abandon bitcoin and go back to fiat!" bitcoin
You are free to give your phone number and device identity to a centralised data base that is inherently vulnerable to state intrusion, but don't kid yourself that it is private and secure.
xmpp and simplex don't require phone number neither device id, and you can self-host. But apparently your answer was not for me.
reply
my mistake I thought you meant Signal.
What is so good about simplex and xmpp?
As a company Simplex is inherently centralised and thus prone to state requests for data.
reply
You're really wrong about that simplex critique. Servers are all self hostable and all simplex hosted servers have onion addresses when you do need to use them (someone sending you doesn't have their own server). offering network layer privacy and decentralization.
A great list of trusted non simplex servers can be found on Nowhere by Nihilist: http://nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/simplex-servers.html
Spin up your own on a vps easily, or better yet behind an onion address only on a local machine and you can talk to anybody with nearly perfect plausible deniability. XMPP simply cannot offer this level of privacy due to it's feudal federation style of decentralization.
reply
The Simplex company itself is a centralised organisation inherently subject to nation state demands.
With Tox there is no centralised entity- no inherent vulnerability- it is truly decentralised plus very easy for anyone to use.
Simplex looks very demanding maybe accessible for very tech capable people but why bother when Tox works for anyone easily with zero phaffing around.
reply
Because the plausible deniability model of SimpleX private routing and asymmetric relays is superior that's why. SimpleX the organization is subpoenable and targetable yes, but self hosted smp onion servers are absolutely not. The code base is open source, with reproducible builds so nothing to fear on the software end. Your claim that SimpleX as a company somehow lessens the decentralized model does not hold under this scrutiny.
Simplex is also very user friendly for onboarding as it just requires users to click a link or scan a QR code. I agree it has failings and those are to do with how foreign a userless messenger is for managing contacts.
I defend it so because I use it exclusively for contact now and I have a way higher degree of comfort knowing metadata is practically nonexistent.
Are there ways Tox is superior? I'm not familiar with the project please inform me if you'd be so kind.
reply
Tox is easy to use, truly decentralised, 100% non profit and community built.
Simplex is a private company structure, motivated by profit and so combined with its centralised and subpoenable status is fundamentally structurally flawed.
Its like shitcoins- DINO. (Decentralised In Name Only)
Simplex looks complex and difficult to use - why take additional risk and effort when Tox is easy to use and inherently more secure?
reply
Ok I've addressed these counter arguments. How is it easy to use? How is it truly decentralized?
I've also just countered your points regarding centralization and subpoena risk. Did you ignore these? Or is there a counterargument to the specifics I've presented that you're not electing to present?
I'm trying to have a discussion to find the best messenger, please offer me the same level of discussion I'm giving to you.
reply
Did you? I think I have, but each to their own. DYOR.