Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive
Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive
We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate—and this is very lean compared to other popular messaging apps that don’t respect your privacy.
您正在查看单个对话串。
to do with a 1mb text file
God you must be like my wife and write fucking novels as text messages.
Lol I think they probably mean like an entire chat history (or page of one), but yeah that's pretty big.
If you are curious, you should give XMPP a shot, it's equivalent to Signal in terms of encryption, but anyone can host their own. Signal is ideologically opposed to anyone but themselves being in control of your account, and because of that I don't want to trust them.
And now here I am, nostalgic for the good old days of having one chat app that could connect you to everyone over XMPP/jabber.
Yeah you could even communicate between facebook and google easily. The world didn't have to be full of walled gardens.
Pidgin exists
Please, don't recommend pidgin, it's a security hellhole, and a pretty terrible XMPP client at that. If you want something with a similar vibe, check-out https://dino.im/ or https://gajim.org/ if you are more on the "power-user" side of things :)
Indeed. Xmpp is lost as a general purpose chat app for everyone. I have many issues with matrix but it's the best chance we have, particularly with bridges.
XMPP is the IETF Internet Standard while Matrix is just another custom IM protocol managed by a venture capital funded startup which keeps losing money.
I don't disagree with that statement; however, that doesn't make it something the general public will embrace. Its mess of extensions are top little too late. That ship has long sailed. And I say this as someone that prefers using XMPP for 1:1 chats
Edit: Sorry, I responded to the wrong parent.
I don't believe Matrix is better positioned than XMPP to succeed. On a technical aspect, Matrix hasn't managed to stabilize its protocol, and they've been a decade into it. This has resulted in only a single organization being in charge of the protocol, the client and the server implementations. This isn't sound, this isn't sustainable. And now, unsurprisingly, this organization is in a financial crisis, has lost important customers, has no budget secured to maintain its staff in the next years, and recently underwent a major licensing change that we can only interpret as a shift towards an opencore model at the detriment of the regular user.
The license change is to a GPL variant from the Apache license. How does that affect the regular user? Wouldn't it be better?
I can't pretend to know the future, but if you read between the lines and the justifications provided, this isn't really about AGPL per se, but about Element brokering AGPL exceptions. Practically we can expect all kinds of forks with opencore options that might enshittify the user experience in different ways, and further solidification of Element's single-handed control over Matrix (which had been a prime concern for many years). Matrix is by the day closer to the closed-source centralized silos it was first pretending to oppose.
I hear what youre saying, I don't like the license exceptions. I just hope it doesnt go that route.
And don't forget the CLA!
Neither XMPP nor Matrix will ever become “the next WhatsApp”: the current internet has seen too much consolidation for the tech majors to permit it (and open and federated protocols can’t compete, do not have the marketing budget nor the platforms to promote their software, but I salute the EU’s Market Act attempt to shake-up the status quo).
But that doesn’t really matter IMO. What (I believe) is important in the grand scheme of things is that such protocols remain alive, maintained and secure, so that:
And yes, I hear you, this is rather niche, but what got me there (and on XMPP in particular) is having been long-enough on the internet to become tired of the never-ending cycle of migrations from service to service. More and more people will have a similar experience as time goes, so this niche will only grow :)
Which xmpp clients have you used? Conversations and its forks seem far from janky. Movim is nice, Dino is looking good, Kaidan is looking pretty good. Prose could be interesting.
WhatsApp started is an XMPP client, but they use lots of proprietary extensions (doesn't matter since they don't federate). You can build very robust and scalable messengers with it if you want to.
The open source implementations are developed by like 1-2 guys in their spare time and they're not far behind (and sometimes even ahead) other federated messengers which received tens of millions in venture capital funding.
Nothing in the XMPP RFCs says you can't do that. Go ahead.
If you need to convince your friends to use some app it might as well be XMPP compatible instead of another walled garden. If you can get your friends on board, you win, even if nobody else uses it.
Ten years ago sure, the days I'd suggest matrix instead.
I assessed XMPP vs Matrix about 8 years ago, and strikingly, the basis on which it didn't make the cut still applies today. Here's what I responded to a sibling post: https://programming.dev/comment/5408356
In short, Matrix dug themselves into a complexity pit with an inadequate protocol, survived for a while on venture capital money (upscaling servers and marketing at all cost), all of it dried up, and now they are in financial trouble. Matrix won't disappear overnight, but is definitely losing the means to run the managed instances and the client/server ecosystem.
They're supporting development of MLS for managing encryption for groups
Yup, like pretty much everyone else :) https://nlnet.nl/project/XMPP-MLS/
Isn't that why they built matrix 2? Or am I thinking of element 2?
Edit: it's matrix
If you read between the lines, Matrix 2 is practically about handing the client state over to the server (what they refer to as "sliding sync"). Realistically, this is an admission that the protocol is too complex to be handled efficiently on the user's devices. I'm not saying there are not clear benefits (and new trade-offs) to the approach, just that in the grand scheme of things the complexity is shifted elsewhere (and admins foot a larger bill).
And Element X as client.
They are kinda shooting themselves in the foot with all their big rewrites though. Like Vector, Riot, Element, Element X (and I think before vector/riot there was another official client). And Synapse/dendrite... It feels like they spread their development over too many fronts.
Is Matrix's problem just the large scale? I thought it worked relatively well if you're just using it for personal needs like smaller servers and personal bridges.
Matrix problems become unmanageable at scale, but the effects of the underlying complexity can be felt long before: https://telegra.ph/why-not-matrix-08-07
It works great for me for personal use yes.
It's difficult to maintain privacy in a P2P environment. In naive implementations, your IP address will be visible to all the peers you connect to. This is the case in e.g. BitTorrent.
Signal has this issue with video/voice calls as well; by default they operate on a P2P basis for performance reasons, and they expose your IP address to the second party. Signal has an option in the settings to relay voice/video calls through their servers specifically to mitigate this.
There are some workarounds for anonymizing P2P, like routing through Tor or I2P. Tor, however, has known exploits and is probably not suitable if you need to hide your activity from advanced adversaries like world governments (e.g. political dissidents, journalists, etc.)
I2P sounds interesting but I'm not deeply familiar with it. I understand that I2P clients also act as relay nodes, which puts an additional bandwidth burden on users. I'm not sure if I2P is more resilient against government-level attacks than Tor. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who is more familiar with the protocol.
If you're using it for personal correspondence with people you know and trust, that's probably fine. However, a secure and private communications platform should support more extreme use cases as well.
If you're a journalist, for example, you might need to communicate with people you do not know or trust. You could realistically be talking to someone who wants to kill you, or who is being monitored by people who want to kill you, particularly if you are covering high-profile political issues or working with whistleblowers (or are yourself a whistleblower). Even revealing information as broad as what city you're in (which would be revealed by your IP address) could be a risk to your physical safety.
Even though I do not personally face such high-level threats in my life, I feel better using services that allow for the possibility. Privacy is a habit, and who knows what tomorrow might bring?
A MitM sniffer would be able to see the source and destination IP addresses, not just the person you're chatting with. Even if the data is encrypted, P2P is still vulnerable to a layer 3 attack.
Will the same apply if you're in a lot of open group chats though?
I‘m not an expert on this topic, so someone correct me if I’m wrong. Signal is only storing stuff temporarily to pass it on, so I’m assuming you’d have the exact same costs even if it weren’t centralized. Maybe even more as it’s probably cheaper to have it managed in one place. I’m assuming all this would do is distribute the cost, but otherwise be the same?
XMPP maybe. Matrix is a bloated protocol which costs a lot more to host.
You're not wrong. Federation would have higher costs but distributed over more people. Even with pure P2P a-la BitTorrent things might not be significantly cheaper because you'd likely still need to host authentication centrally or federally. You'd only eliminate the message bandwidth costs.
The thing is, we already have a way to distribute the costs - people subscribe to support Signal. Some pay more, others less. Whether I run a node that serves 100 people or subscribe for $10/month, it's somewhat equivalent. So the practical takeaway should be - if you want for Signal to keep signalling - subscribe if you can afford it.
The difference is that there's enough unused capacity on your personal device to handle all the traffic any typical user needs to handle in a day many times over, for simple messaging. Likely, that load is so little it won't even affect your battery life.
Wouldn’t you still need a server in between to temporarily store the messages if the other person isn’t available?
Wouldn’t that mean both have to have a connection at the same time? What if one is offline?
You can also just hook up any old phone or computer, install the app, and let it run as the server.
If you have a static IP address, if you want to bother with securing and maintaining it, if you're willing to deal with downtime when something inevitably breaks, if you're willing to deal with lost data or also maintaining a backup solution, if... a dozen other things that most people don't want to deal with.
Sure, but you also just... don't have to do that. None of that is necessary fore core functionality of a messaging service, IF you stipulate that both devices must be online at the same time to ping each other.
The only thing you need is some very basic addressing service so they can find each other, and there are entirely P2P solutions for this that already exist and work without issue. See: bittorrent.
The ONLY drawback of having no server, fundamentally, is that the two devices need synchronicity. If they both aren't online at once, messages won't get delivered. Which is not a big deal for a modern smartphone given that most of them are online close to all of the time.
I'm not really going to get into the technical aspect since I feel neither of us know enough to tell how feasible it is (although I think you're wrong since you do need trackers in order to find at least one other member of the swarm), but this part
If they both aren't online at once, messages won't get delivered. Which is not a big deal for a modern smartphone given that most of them are online close to all of the time.
I just a horrible take. You can't base your business model on "modern phones being online close to all of the time". You can't have random data loss whenever someone goes out of service area, has to turn on airplane mode, runs out of battery, has a software error or just an update or some other kind of temporary downtime? That's not how you design any software, less alone a dependable messaging service. You can't just "stipulate that".
Nothing gets lost. Not having every packet get delivered is already entirely normal on any internet application, and already solved.
Solving that "problem" is as simple as sending an acknowledgement back when a message is received, and retrying when acknowledgement isn't received. Routing P2P is more (but not very) complicated than that is.
What business model? Why does a messaging app need to be a business? And again, how is someone who doesn't have service supposed to be receiving/sending messages? Makes no damn sense.
Basically all bittorrent programs include allowing a peer to act as a tracker directly.
Keet is closed-source app with built-in crypto, I am not touching it with a 10ft pole. Holepunch does sound like interesting technology at first glance. It doesn't solve any of the issues mentioned above besides connectivity however.
