SimpleX Chat: private and secure messenger without any user IDs (not even random)
simplex.chat
SimpleX Chat - a private and encrypted messenger without any user IDs (not even random ones)! Make a private connection via link / QR code to send messages and make calls.

SimpleX Chat is an instant messenger that is decentralized and doesn’t depend on any unique identifiers such as phone numbers or usernames. Users of SimpleX Chat can scan a QR code or click an invite link to participate in group conversations.

-privacyguides.org

It’s clearly proving to be the most innovative technology when it comes to decentralized communication, in my opinion.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    12220·
    9 months ago

    SimpleX Chat Ltd is a seed stage startup with a lot of user growth in 2022-2023, and a lot of exciting technical and product problems to solve to grow faster.

    Run by a VC funded for-profit company. That really should tell you all you need to know. Sorry, but no thanks.

    • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
      6919·
      9 months ago

      this is a wrong take for a few reasons, if we’re talking about trust.

      Also, Signal literally was taking money from the CIA for a decade and also is based in the US anyway, and no one hardly said a word 🤣🤣 “Privacy” activists are a joke lmao. Also signal made a crypto coin and took away features like SMS, but of course they get a free pass for that too. Makes you wonder.

      1. SimpleX is fully open source, verifiable, and audited. If there are changes that are bad, the community will talk about them, and at worst it can be forked

      2. SimpleX has made it clear that they dont want you to trust them. It’s decentralised and anyone can run their own relay, and the servers are designed prevent correlation. They also make it very easy to use TOR and multiple circuits. This is contrary to the inferior Signal model where you just have to trust that the centralized Signal org isnt leaking your phone and IP to the feds.

      moving towards a decentralised, open, and trustless world is better for everyone. In this kind of system, I really dont give a damn where they are getting their money from, as long as they arent putting crap in the software, and if they do, we will all know about it. But so far they have shown that they are committed to extreme security and privacy, and they obviously arent trying to appeal to normies, so i doubt they would ever even try to put VC-pushed garbage in.

      If you want a good app, you will need funding from somewhere. Look at apps like Session that arent funded well. They suck. So I’d rather SimpleX be funded by a VC instead of by the feds like Signal, as long as everything stays open, free, trustless, and decentralised

      Time to get downvoted! See you guys at -50 😁

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        267·
        9 months ago

        Where did I even mention Signal? Total strawman argument, as I don’t think Signal is a good option either.

        But you go ahead and trust Simplex Chat Ltd. I guess some people only learn from their own mistakes 🤷‍♂️

        • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
          229·
          9 months ago

          you completely ignored what i said, as I specifically argued that simplex is made to be used without trust. so dont talk about me trusting people lol.

          Also I agree with you on Signal, was just throwing it out there for others, not necessarily for you.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            638·
            9 months ago

            You walked right into my deliberate rethorical trap 😅

            There is no such thing as trustless computing, and anyone that tries to sell you that is scamming you or drank the same kool-aid.

      • SolarPunker@slrpnk.netOP
        124·
        9 months ago

        Exactly what I thought; if the technology is so decentralized does it make sense to care so much about who finances the project? Like if one instance of lemmy was funded by Microsoft, we could easily use another one and block it, right?

        • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          9 months ago

          originally it was. but it was given to the larger community as an open project, because they realized that without public use, it would be useless.

          There is endless discussion on whether tor software is backdoored or not, but I severely doubt this with all the eyes on the open source code

          There is also debate on how many nodes are owned by the feds, but the largest estimates at the peak were about 20%ish iirc. i doubt it’s a significant number enough to worry about, from what I’ve seen.

          tldr I’d recommend to look up all the opinions online yourself.

      • uzi@lemmy.ca
        44·
        9 months ago

        I’m in full agreement with you. Not even a little bit of disagreement.

    • FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social
      252·
      9 months ago

      Upvoted bc VC eventually means enshittifiication. But with xz getting back-doored recently, what is the middle ground that keeps these things sustainable financially and operationally?

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        6·
        9 months ago

        Maybe it’ll be governments partially funding it. If Schleswig-Holstein’s attempt is anything to go by, it might be a way

        • FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social
          51·
          9 months ago

          But do we trust entities that depend on our governments for funding? It could be argued that they’re fundamentally compromised.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            8·
            9 months ago

            As opposed to whom? Are investors in VC startups less compromised or more? What are the incentives in either case? Who do you trust to be competent and/or incompetent enough to compromise it without you noticing it? Who is likely to change a project that was well intentioned first after the fact? In what ways?

          • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
            6·
            9 months ago

            You have 4 basic options for funding:

            -you rely on individual donations which doesn’t bring in enough money

            -you force people to pay for it, which makes it less attractive when compared to traditional software, and makes much of the community pissy

            -you rely on corporate money

            -you rely on government money

            None is perfect, but some amount of government funding (let’s say, 10% of what they would pay Microsoft for the equivalent software) might make sense