zlacker

is there any way they can reduce that cost?

>>bilal4+(OP)
Yeah, decouple Signal user identity from the phone number.

>>java-m+A
This will probably never happen. One of the reasons WhatsApp blew up is because using a phone number as your source of identification means there's much less friction in the signup flow. No username/password to create and your social graph is already there in your contact list.

My mom was able to get our entire extended family on Signal without my involvement, which is a testament to how easy that is.

>>tapoxi+e4
They're already working on it: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/signal-tests-...

Not whether that's a good idea is more debatable; you're not wrong about discoverability.

>>yjftsj+e5
Those are in addition to the phone number, but it will still require a phone number under the hood.

>>java-m+A
Which might be said to increase privacy. I suppose there's something to the point about combating spam. But surely there are other ways to do this, right?

>>tapoxi+B5
In the short term it will, and quite possibly in a long-term also, but if you were going to fully make phone numbers optional, I'm pretty sure this is the first step you would take. At the very least it sure looks like they're starting to build the possibility.

>>java-m+A
Phone numbers are the easiest login for people, especially in a world where not everyone has an email address.

I know this will invite comments about usernames. I would like usernames a lot too.

>>tapoxi+e4
They also blew up because it was also quite decent SMS app, so you just had to install Signal and use it instead of your default SMS app. All your messages are there, you can continue to communicate exactly like you did before, except that now, if the other person also has Signal, your messages are encrypted.

They stopped doing that (and I uninstalled Signal as a result), so they can also stop with the phone number thing, in fact, it would make more sense than with the current situation where Signal needs a phone number but doesn't use it (except for registration). I could even reinstall Signal if they do this.

>>xhkkff+h6
Getting rid of phone numbers would make anonymity easier, but it wouldn't affect privacy. Signal is explicitly private but not anonymous.

In most countries, you can get an anonymous phone number anyway.

>>bilal4+(OP)
Send them via whatsapp. A lot of online services give an option to send OTP via whatsapp along with SMS/Email.

>>tapoxi+e4
Why not both?

If I want discoverability, let me provide my phone number.

If I want privacy, just assign a random identifier.

>>i67vw3+Ea
As far as I understand, this is even more expensive than SMS in many cases due to WhatsApp's B2C messaging fee structure.

It's also not a great idea to make sign-ups for an instant messaging service contingent on having an account with another, competing service.

>>tapoxi+e4
Nobody is demanding them to stop supporting phone numbers as identifiers/verification methods.

I'm not mad at all if somebody prefers using their phone number and not having a password for a service – just give me the option to use my email address and/or a username.

There are too many "phone number only" services out there these days.

>>j45+39
If only it was possible for a service to support both!

>>lxgr+si
Usernames are currently available in beta, the post I was replying to wondered if SMS verification could be removed because it's expensive.

>>tapoxi+e4
It has nothing to do with friction...

>>lxgr+si
> Nobody is demanding them to stop supporting phone numbers as identifiers/verification methods.

Plenty of people are, and for good reasons.

>>lxgr+Ci
I know, too bad that possibility was only possible in the past and not with todays technology.

The knowledge of how to do this has forever been lost. Hopefully archaeologists can reconstruct it one day.