I'm mostly just confused because this is being presented as a technical limitation: using email addresses would supposedly "require Signal to keep a database of contacts serverside". I don't understand how or why that's true.
I don't know what the real reason is, what I said was just something that popped into my head. Another comment mentioned spam-prevention as a reason (by making it infeasibly expensive), and that actually makes more sense. Honestly, there probably isn't just one reason, but a cluster of tradeoffs.
> Isn't it better to have a larger pool of people with whom I can communicate securely using Signal?
IMHO, the number people who care deeply enough about the phone number thing to boycott Signal is vanishingly small; not even a rounding error. Sure they're loud on HN or maybe even Twitter, but giving tiny but loud minorities whatever they demand is bad policy.
What I meant was: "it's better if I can use Signal to communicate with people even if all I know is their email address".
One of the reasons I wish I could use something other than my phone number and access to my contact list to work with signal is these notifications creep me the fuck out and I would rather never get them, or have anyone get them about me.
I'm fine with it being a feature for people who want it, but I don't. I want to make my own damn choices about who I talk to through it.
I feel like you're mis-analyzing a social problem or some other design goal as a low-level technical problem.
I don't know their real reason, but I can say that my email contact list is waaay messier and less curated than my phone contact list. It would probably be annoying is I'd get a "So-and-so joined Signal!" notification for a bunch of randos I've emailed once and had their email auto-added to my address book.