News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck?. Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by aeorgnoieang on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @03:42PM (#16748383)
Maybe a company could allow paying customers to invite 10 of their contacts to use the app/service for free. Or is even the potential association of all of those people too insecure?

I otherwise can't imagine how to bootstrap a network.

Maybe users could pay to receive messages.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by narag on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @06:09PM (#16749847)
I otherwise can't imagine how to bootstrap a network.

Facebook started with a narrow target: students of some uni. Look for another similar group of persons, that want privacy and don't mind spending a few dollars.

Edit: Whatsapp (everybody here in Spain has it) was a paid app at first. They gave one year away... eventually they made it free, around the time that Facebook bought it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by aeorgnoieang on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:14AM (#16754841)
One problem with bootstrapping a network of users of an encrypted messaging app/service is that info about the network of users itself arguably needs to be secured too.

But you're still probably right overall. Marketing to businesses or teams within businesses is probably the best bet.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by kerng on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @09:55PM (#16751230)
Yeah, wondering how WhatsApp would be doing if Facebook wouldn't have bought them. It might have been much better for the market if they would still be independent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by dharness on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @07:53PM (#16750584)
When it targeted a narrow band of uni students Facebook was free, and didn't have ads
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by Something1234 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:15PM (#16748654)
> Maybe users could pay _receive_ messages.

Pay to recieve a possibly unsolicited message?!

That's insane.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by aeorgnoieang on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:30PM (#16748805)
Yeah, even requiring users to _send_ messages probably isn't enough to prevent spam. But that's assuming something like the example I imagined, someone wanting to received encrypted messages from anonymous others.

If a user's address is private tho, then asking them to pay to receive messages should be as sensible as the degree to which they protect the distribution of their address.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by agrue on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @05:44PM (#16749619)
Unlimited texting as the norm is pretty new, carriers have charged for incoming and outgoing MMS since it became a thing. Same with minutes and received calls.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by andrewflnr on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @10:13PM (#16751314)
Getting charged to receive a message I didn't ask for was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. The difference is that people are even less likely to tolerate it now.
[ Parent | on HN ]