zlacker

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+(OP)
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+01
Those are in addition to the phone number, but it will still require a phone number under the hood.

>>tapoxi+n1
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.

>>tapoxi+(OP)
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.

>>tapoxi+(OP)
Why not both?

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

If I want privacy, just assign a random identifier.

>>tapoxi+(OP)
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.

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

>>tapoxi+(OP)
It has nothing to do with friction...

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

Plenty of people are, and for good reasons.