-
I am a bit late to the party, but a messenger I love to use is Threema Libre. Using the Web client / Desktop is a bit a hickup since you have to log in every day, but I really like the security aspect.
-
Handy spreadsheet comparing features:
-
Interesting : the only app from that analysis with 100% green (or N/A) is Simplex (https://simplex.chat/)
-
@timconsidine I did try to use SimpleX with a friend. I use iOS, friend use Android. I tried to like SimpleX, but it was not such a good experience. Very battery consuming and many App crashes on both(!) devices.
-
For me Signal still provides the best balance of stability/ usability/ privacy (although to be honest I've not tried most of the apps listed in that spreadsheet as Signal is Good Enough for me and I've got various functioning groups on there that include not very technical people)
-
@jdaviescoates And they allow usernames now, for phone number privacy.
Web Design https://www.evergreen.je
Development https://brandlight.org
Life https://marcusquinn.com -
@marcusquinn indeed. I'm now @jdaviescoates.01 on there
-
@jdaviescoates said in Best privacy chat apps:
@marcusquinn indeed. I'm now @jdaviescoates.01 on there
sending p0rn.....
NOW!
-
You might want to take a look at the Messenger Matrix, which was compiled by security expert Mike Kuketz:
-
@jdaviescoates said in Best privacy chat apps:
A single Bitcoin transaction uses more energy than an average U.S. household uses in 2 months!
....
A 10-year old iPhone could process more transactions per second than the entirety of the Bitcoin network it's so insanely slow.
These two statements don't seem to reconcile. If I combine them, then "A 10-year old iPhone uses more energy than several average US households do in 2 months to process more transactions than the entirety of the Bitcoin network". If this were true, that 10-year old iPhone would rack up HUGE electricity bills for whoever has it plugged in at home (at least 2 months x # of transactions).
-
@scooke why would you combine them? The "10-year old iPhone" (although I've literally no idea why I chose to write specifically that) wouldn't be processing blockchain transactions.
-
@jdaviescoates I'm just using the terms that were in the post. "A single Bitcoin transaction...", "iPhone ... process more transactions". Both transactions are on the blockchain. Perhaps the first statement was trying to say something more like "ALL the computers connected to the blockchain when a transaction occurs use more energy than...". The first statement sounds like an exaggeration and frankly won't sway most away from using Bitcoin (well, any phrase always has the potential to sway some number of people any which way). It wouldn't be accurate to say that ALL computers connected to the blockchain are essential for any given transaction to process, but that is what is implied. It isn't true. It certainly is fine and good for people to make others aware that there are costs associated with Bitcoin, but I'd avoid fearmongering.
I thought I'd brush up my info before posting, and read https://river.com/learn/how-does-a-bitcoin-transaction-work/. So, yeah, I can't confirm how much energy a given mining NODE uses to mine a specific order, but it still looks to me like fearmongering when the costs are talked about, generally.
