> But your identity was also permanently compromised;
Only if I accepted the request. Clicking the link would presumably act the same way as a contact that you don't know. It asks before you accept. So I can wait till you respond.
Only if I accepted the request. Clicking the link would presumably act the same way as a contact that you don't know. It asks before you accept. So I can wait till you respond.
> Godelski: Hey, let's chat on Signal, my link is signal.me/#one-time-code/jdjkerfe2r3rfwseffre5ge5g
> Thaumasiotes: Hey, link seems bad
Sure, that interaction degraded gracefully. But your identity was also permanently compromised; it doesn't make sense to focus on how easy it was for me to say "hey, that didn't work". The reason the link went bad is that you disclosed your identity to someone you were specifically trying to keep it a secret from. This is an unforgivable flaw in the protocol.
>> you're on the much simpler problem of communicating in a way that is resistant to eavesdroppers
> We already have that. It's called E2EE.
Well, no. E2EE is the answer to resisting one particular eavesdropper. What you're trying to get at is called "public key cryptography", the system whereby two strangers can establish a secure channel without relying on an already-existing secure channel. E2EE has nothing to say about establishing secure channels; it just refers to the concept of using one.
Here's the system you actually want:
Godelski: Hey, let's chat on Signal, what's your PGP public key?.
Thaumasiotes: My PGP key is yyyyy.
Godelski: [encrypted for yyyyy: Here's how you can find me on Signal]
But notice that Signal doesn't participate in this exchange. Nor can it. I'm not on Signal, as far as you know; your messages to me have to use some other medium.