Not supporting the open nature of hardware and software.

Basically it’s too much of a hassle to make their software run on other hardware or use other software on their hardware.

Why is it 103 mb?

I think everyone knew what was meant with encryption in this context.

I think not.

Anything goes through closed servers. Even more, serverless chat protocols tend to go through multiple users PCs (they are not open to you).

point of encrypting stuff. at least telegram supports it

I’m pretty sure telegram doesn’t support plaintext transfers.

its like saying facebook is private

I didn’t call telegram private.

not encrypted by default

Not e2e encrypted ≠ not encrypted.

its closed

Client is open source and you can use your own client with custom functionality if you like. I imagine nothing stops anyone from adding their own e2e implementations on top of it.

Yeah I’ve never used matrix really.

Does it sync automatically between desktop and mobile? Can I share an image into it on mobile and have it a few seconds later on laptop?

I have no use for it for now and as long as it’s still electron on desktop I don’t want to have it running.

Signal is not applicable when you need a public space for people to just have a discussion, like in discord. Signal clients are clunky and rely on cross sync from what I see, while telegram clients are well made and convenient to use. Even Whatsapp went away from electron so I’d choose it over signal any day.

No that’s not what I didn’t understand. The problem itself as you described it seems either a non-issue or something very few people (who’s already using telegram for some time) would care about. I don’t understand the scenario that would pose a problem for the user. The moment some account legitimately gains access to some chat is probably what should trouble you instead.

Sorry I have a hard time understanding the gist of your text. I don’t think it’s viable to be upset about what happens with access that was already acquired previously because that very fact already poses a bigger threat (which might have more to do with the nature of conversations vs how the platform works).

For public chats, you wouldn’t need to approve, only for private chat groups.

I get that but it kind of defeats the purpose. If your group is so small that it’s worth it for every member to approve new ones then it probably doesn’t produce enough content for each new member to care about.

Whenever a user adds a new client (device), all conversations recipients should have to approve in order for them to see the chat history.

Why though? In case of a public chat or a chat with at least few dozens of users it’ll already be excessive if it could work at all.

All chat history and groups are peer 2 peer

Like really P2P or E2E? Because I know at least one chat app that is serverless but doesn’t involve E2E apparently - tox. E2E is an overkill for big group chats because it means you have to re-encrypt every message for every new user for them to see it. Else if you rely on just a fixed shared key it’s not E2E anymore (which will make some people sad and hate your app).

Telegram did have enough time to implement a server based e2e 0 knowledge encryption protocol though, it’s not really rocket science at this point.

What do you mean by server based e2e? From what I get, most people’s complain is that Telegram doesn’t support e2e in group chats, and that is what seems to be close to rocket science in my opinion. Also Telegram is historically filled with ever growing group chats, which means quite serious implications for server requirements from what I understand.

arent telegram chats unencrypted by default?

Encryption is always there. Problem is, some people refer to anything “not e2e encrypted” as “unencrypted” for some reason.

What’s broken there?

People don’t need to get an sms from you to know your number works. There are tons of other ways including just trying to log in into telegram or Whatsapp with a list of many numbers.

You mean you can try to guess someone’s number before they get an OTP through you in order to be the first to log into their account?

Well then you’ll also going to need their cloud password in order to find anything worth of your effort.

But anyway this is an improbable scenario, considering how vast the user base is, and if we assume telegram implemented some precautions.

Malicious service providers and cloned sim cards pose a much more serious risk if you ask me.

Logic suggests OTPs are locked to login sessions of corresponding users and also expire. Besides telegram would be able to tell if OTPs meant to be sent through you tend to not reach the recipients.

No but what exactly stops anyone from doing that? A privacy consideration? I’d think it’s just a waste of time at best.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this deal?

No jokes, I’d like to know. How is it different from sending sms to random numbers?

Try Ripcord.

Maybe because it offers public chats and channels? Something other apps lack.

Also the best desktop experience out of all apps I’ve tried.

I’m dead set on playing online games without cheaters.

Then you should’ve stopped playing when you encountered the first cheater. The one that you knew was a cheater, at least.

Things like this create false sense of safety where you assume the game has less cheaters but in reality you can hardly tell.

I actually believed that kernal level anti cheats stopped all cheating.

This is what allows AC devs to continue working on their useless code that only makes a mess out of everyone’s PCs and getting money with it. Same with DRM devs.

F-droid app seems to be not that great though. Using Droid-ify instead.