Ah yes. In a completely "trustless" and "decentralized" environment I'm asked to trust an unknown centralized entity that they will keep all the historical data and have it open for inspection, pinky swear.
Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. What I mean is that they say "you don't need to trust us", yet they require you to run through them. They refuse to build their system in a decentralized way, and the more that time goes by the more the decentralized alternatives are showing they are as secure as Signal without forcing us to accept their restrictions like mandatory use of phone numbers for authentication.
Your periodic reminder that talking about "trustlessness" in distributed systems only means that the consensus can be verified independently and that there is no central authority.
Yep, it's all speculation and just blind faith that any of these opaque, closed-source apps (and network infrastructures) and trustworthy at all. It's "trust me, bro," but with many, many more words and much more marketing.
I wish more people would use something that's not US backed honestly.
Centralisation is a curse.
I don't inherently trust Signal, and you have to because nothing they do is verifiable; I wrote a really hit-and-miss article about this before: https://blog.dijit.sh/i-don-t-trust-signal/
reply