So they're in the process of moving it from 1995 to 2004. That's great!
If all you have on Signal is opt-in feature for payment, and an issue of usernames that's being worked on -- but you want to offer as a solution a product that's for now, completely insecure by design (but it's being worked on), you're in dangerous waters. This is especially condemnable because the issue with Signal here is confidentiality of sensitive data.
You'd replace a one-in-a-billion database key collision problem with 100% of content leaking to service provider that literally offered the Telegram defense "The AES256 key is on a DIFFERENT computer". It's not. It by definition of how computers work, can not be. The database key sits in the RAM of the database server doing the database commits. The CPU can't perform AES operations without the key, and the key isn't being quantum teleported from another machine's RAM to the registers of the computer doing the encryption. These guys have no idea how computer security works, yet you deem them worthy of your attention. This makes me question your expertise on the subject matter too.
Calm down, I only said at worst for Quill, it seems like now I have to question your reading skills.
> If all you have on Signal is opt-in feature for payment, and an issue of usernames that's being worked on...
Opt in or not, don't think I want cryptocurrencies in my chat app. Look what happened to Keybase after that. Usernames of some kind should have been be there from day one. We don't need any more phone number leaks.
Also don't forget that Signal cannot end calls properly and the recipient is still able listen after the call has ended. Very bad. [0]
I'd rather use a chat app that takes security matters seriously and urgently and will eventually have E2E.
What's more 'idiotic' is prioritising and bolting on cryptocurrencies [0] than fixing urgent security issues, leaving it for months unfixed, while also claiming to be private and secure, and also requiring your phone number.
I agree that adding a crypto coin the way they did it is idiotic as well. But I wouldn't ditch an encrypted app for one that will 'eventually' be E2E encrypted. matrix.org is E2E encrypted and secure now and it's being used by France and Germany.
Matrix / Element is unfortunately just far too technical for end users and the general population, but it is better than IRC.
A mistake was the naming, for example you refer to the name of the protocol 'Matrix' instead of the name of the client 'Element'. Having a naming issue risks confusing lots of people, other than that I have already mentioned it as an alternative.
>I'd rather use a chat app that takes security matters seriously and urgently and will eventually have E2E.
Deploying messaging app without E2EE being the first four chars on the security design paper -- even before the product name -- is the opposite of taking security matters seriously.
Could you recommend a better chat app that is user friendly enough for regular people to use that is not Signal or WhatsApp and is cross platform?
Quill are at least working on E2E, not introducing a cryptocurrency like Signal and don't require your phone number.