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 sshine on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @04:27AM (#16753014)
In some ways, the ideal scenario is to have a funded, privacy-aware NGO maintain a messenger service, but:

https://blog.torproject.org/sunsetting-tor-messenger

"We, the people" is such a fragile concept when it comes to resource stability (time, money, dedication). Looking at a project like Linux, there are commercial interests that fund a large part of the pipeline.

Running the actual network and developing the various messenger clients add a layer of organizational complexity that, in my perspective, only private companies have been able to honor, and only to the extent described by the OP.

One could settle for less Service, but then we have XMPP with various encryption schemes. Too complex to set up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by ReverseCold on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:01AM (#16755349)
> Running the actual network

The ideal would require no servers, because the chat would be fully peer to peer. People wanting to be anonymous could just connect through Tor. (Each user account is just a private key, etc, etc.)

Of course, in reality everything is behind a NAT and/or firewall. It wouldn't be too difficult to have "dumb" servers that just exist to pass messages hosted by the community though.

[ Parent | on HN ]