zlacker

>>mikece+(OP)
$6 million per year on outgoing SMS? Do not send SMS to users, make users send SMS to you instead to confirm their numbers! I have this solution for years and it works >90% of the time. The rest 10% is calling a verification number which drops calls with busy signal (no fees for the caller) but sees who is calling and is able to verify their number.

>>vizzah+PV
It would be great if Signal wouldn't require a phone number for account setup at all

>>johndo+941
this is in testing and coming to you early next year.

>>illiac+U41
Would invites be a solution? Anyone can sign up if they provide a number, otherwise you need an invite from someone with a number linked. It would clump the identity/legitimacy for all invitees into origin number, but still allow disparate accounts.

>>travis+I61
It’s not about legitimacy but having a bootstrapped contact list to talk to along with other user friction reasons

>>novok+S71
In that case it doesn't make sense to make it required.

Sure, I don't mind if they ask for my phone number if they think that's a better default onboarding flow, but allow users to bypass it.

With all that said, I don't think it's really only about user friction.

>>serial+Tb1
they did not "make it required", Signal was just never developed to support anything else for username/registration. Which is what they have now almost corrected.

>>illiac+Ab2
sounds required to me.

>>serial+LJ2
It's wording then. Making something required sounds like an artificial limitation whereas implementing support for usernames requires a lot of work, it's not like they commented out a couple of lines on purpose.

What is required at the moment is any phone number, not your phone number. You can use a phone booth even.