| 20 Jul 2024 |
 S1m | You re welcome :) | 15:00:03 |
| S1m | IMO Google services are good for most people but that's very nice to offer the alternative to the users | 15:00:26 |
 pm4rcin | In reply to @sim_g:matrix.org
IMO Google services are good for most people but that's very nice to offer the alternative to the users are "good" because there's no alternative for most apps | 15:04:54 |
 Narasimha | I think google notifications certainly shouldn't be used for private messaging, anything else is better than that | 15:06:07 |
| pm4rcin | Simplex did at least one compromise with multi-device usage where Evgeny said there's no better way to sync things right now. So I don't see a problem doing another one and fix battery problems once and for all so I could switch everyone to it. Also it would strengthen the whole ecosystem supporting UP and thus actually increasing privacy because maybe other app devs will see it and try to implement it. | 15:10:50 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @pm4rcin:matrix.org
Simplex did at least one compromise with multi-device usage where Evgeny said there's no better way to sync things right now. So I don't see a problem doing another one and fix battery problems once and for all so I could switch everyone to it. Also it would strengthen the whole ecosystem supporting UP and thus actually increasing privacy because maybe other app devs will see it and try to implement it. it's not a security/privacy compromise, only usability compromise | 15:11:22 |
| Narasimha | it's worth noting that improving SimpleX Chat performance will benefit not only phones, but desktops too, which wouldn't benefit from UnifiedPush at all | 15:11:58 |
| pm4rcin | In reply to @narasimha:nitro.chat
it's not a security/privacy compromise, only usability compromise From my impression you told the opposite at the beginning. | 15:12:28 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @pm4rcin:matrix.org
From my impression you told the opposite at the beginning. I mean the current device linking feature | 15:12:58 |
| Narasimha | it is secure and private | 15:13:02 |
| S1m | In reply to @narasimha:nitro.chat
it's worth noting that improving SimpleX Chat performance will benefit not only phones, but desktops too, which wouldn't benefit from UnifiedPush at all Both can be done. Offering UP and optimizing the connection | 15:13:33 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @sim_g:matrix.org
Both can be done. Offering UP and optimizing the connection yes, but UnifiedPush would result in being a compromise in terms of privacy | 15:13:54 |
| pm4rcin | In reply to @narasimha:nitro.chat
I think it would decrease privacy and not improve battery usage for those who don't want to use unifiedpush this you've said | 15:14:02 |
| Narasimha | Evgeny said that he plans to make SimpleX Chat use no more battery than UnifiedPush | 15:14:20 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @pm4rcin:matrix.org
this you've said ? | 15:14:34 |
| Narasimha | I think you may be misreading something :) | 15:14:42 |
| S1m | In reply to @narasimha:nitro.chat
yes, but UnifiedPush would result in being a compromise in terms of privacy Well, NTF servers for iOS already exist, there are not yet self hostable (hard coded) and push to a watched server. It can be done without reducing privacy :) | 15:15:40 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @sim_g:matrix.org
Well, NTF servers for iOS already exist, there are not yet self hostable (hard coded) and push to a watched server. It can be done without reducing privacy :) yes, iOS notification servers are already a privacy compromise, but that is just because there was no other way to do notifications | 15:16:15 |
| Narasimha | In reply to @sim_g:matrix.org
Well, NTF servers for iOS already exist, there are not yet self hostable (hard coded) and push to a watched server. It can be done without reducing privacy :) * yes, iOS notification servers are already a privacy compromise, but that is just because there was no other way to do notifications on iOS | 15:16:22 |
| Narasimha | android can do better than that :) | 15:16:49 |
| pm4rcin | In reply to @narasimha:nitro.chat
Evgeny said that he plans to make SimpleX Chat use no more battery than UnifiedPush Maybe with Server Sent Events like tuta. But still it could be many different servers so can't see it. Or he will invent something new that would surprise me. | 15:17:24 |
| Narasimha | also worth noting that SimpleX Chat is building for the future, where more performant devices will be available and the optimizations may no longer be necessary | 15:19:18 |
| Narasimha | but groups update that will happen later this year should improve performance significantly as it will reduce the amount of connections by a lot | 15:19:56 |
 Green Sheep | In reply to @pm4rcin:matrix.org
Simplex did at least one compromise with multi-device usage where Evgeny said there's no better way to sync things right now. So I don't see a problem doing another one and fix battery problems once and for all so I could switch everyone to it. Also it would strengthen the whole ecosystem supporting UP and thus actually increasing privacy because maybe other app devs will see it and try to implement it. they didn't ;) | 16:07:20 |
| Green Sheep | the current linked devices doesn't compromise at all | 16:07:29 |
| Green Sheep | * the current linked devices doesn't compromise at all on security | 16:07:47 |
| Green Sheep | it only works over LAN via quantum resistant protocol, you can't use your phone at the same as the linked device | 16:07:57 |
| Green Sheep | I think Signal has fixed it by requiring authetnicating with system unlock method before adding linked device | 16:08:31 |
| Green Sheep | if I remember correctly it was an implementation issue and not a protocol one | 16:08:43 |
| Green Sheep | it still compromises on privacy slightly by showing your contacts how many devices you have and they can tell which device you're messaging from with modified clinet | 16:09:07 |
