News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by niksakl on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @02:27PM (#16747620)
1. Telegram - Not p2p

2. Tox - p2p

3. Whatsapp - Not p2p

4. Signal - Not p2p

Putting the above aside: If Tox doesn't work for you, your best mobile-friendly options are: 1) Signal and 2) as others have mentioned Matrix - if you want a self hosted and federated solution.

[edited: addendum] i now realize you probably mean p2p-encrypted messaging. Damn semantics of non-formal languages!

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by qznc on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:48PM (#16748422)
My guess is that the intention was "E2E encrypted".
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by niksakl on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:58PM (#16748499)
Yes, i guessed the same, but after i posted the original answer.
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by pnutjam on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @05:29PM (#16749480)
No love for SpiderOak's Semaphor. It's a secure end-to-end encrypted system. Free for 5 users or less. https://spideroak.com/semaphor/
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by itakedrugs on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @07:27PM (#16750410)
How do you call P2P that is strictly without any third party?
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by asdsa5325 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @09:05PM (#16750969)
What does "third party" in your question refer to? Are you referring to servers that route client-side encrypted messages from user to user?
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by itakedrugs on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @07:32AM (#16753756)
Yes, so that messages can reach a user even if the receiving and sending users are never online at the same time (a server could be another user/peer(s) that isn't part of the communication, so it could possibly still be called p2p?)
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by dilippkumar on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @09:16PM (#16751037)
p2p strictly implies no third parties.

If there is a third party involved, you are not p2p.

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by keynan on Friday April 06, 2018 @01:19PM (#16775067)
That is incorrect. You've just defined P2P such that no commonly accepted P2P application meets it. At a minimum every P2P app you've likely ever heard of or used, baring maybe one exception, has at a minimum used third parties for orchestration.
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by itakedrugs on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:32AM (#16754484)
so if other users (not part of the conversation) are used as temporary servers so that messages get delivered even if the sender or receiver are never connected at the same time, what would it be called?
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by dilippkumar on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @05:21PM (#16759250)
AFAIK there isn't a modern word to describe the common architecture that you describe.

About a decade ago, the phrase "hub-and-spokes network" was thrown around to describe an architecture with a central server that acted as the mediator. The term "p2p" became popular in this context. (

Napster, bittorrent, tox are all "p2p" because they don't connect to single server. Skype is not "p2p" because all packets go through the skype servers.

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by sliken on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:07PM (#16761200)
Skype used to be p2p, except for the original auth/login. But since then microsoft bought the company and push everything through their servers.