Skip Navigation

Why don't people here love SimpleXChat more?

simplex.chat

SimpleX Chat: private and secure messenger without any user IDs (not even random)

SimpleX Chat is an instant messenger that is decentralized and doesn't depend on any unique identifiers such as phone numbers or usernames. Users of SimpleX Chat can scan a QR code or click an invite link to participate in group conversations.

-privacyguides.org

It's clearly proving to be the most innovative technology when it comes to decentralized communication, in my opinion.

126 comments
  • Because when you read their website https://simplex.chat/ and they say stuff like "Possibility of MITM > NO" and "Central component or other network-wide attack > No - resilient" they kind lose their credibility.

    Also, "Other apps have user IDs (...) SimpleX does not, not even random numbers." > there must be an ID at some point. When you invite someone with a QR code or a link that effectively becomes an ID - even if it changes for every invitation. Also servers need to coordinate message delivery, some form of ID is required for that.

    The way the messaging queues work and what the servers see is interesting but I'm yet to dig into that.

  • What does their multi-device story look like? Can I use one identity/account on multiple devices, with synced read state etc?

    Edit: Looks like it's being worked on. I don't want to use a messenger without this feature anymore, but I'll give SimpleX another look once it's done.

  • Here is my take as someone who absolutely loves the work simplex did on the SMP protocol, but still does not use SimpleX Chat.

    First the trivial stuff:

    1. no one else seems to use it
    2. UX is not great because of initial exchange

    These two are not that unexpected. Any other chat app with E2E security has tricky UX, and SimpleX takes the hard road by not trading off security/privacy for UX. I think this is a plus, but yes it annoys people.

    Now for the reasons that really keep me away:

    1. the desktop app is way behind the mobile app - and I would really prefer to use a desktop CLI app
    2. haskell puts me off a bit - the language is fine I just don't know how to read it - for more practical issues it did not support older (arm6/7) devices which kept lots of people in older devices away
    3. AFAIK no alternative implementations of either the client or the SMP server exist - which is a petty I think the protocol would shine in other contexts (like push notifications)
    4. I was going to say that there are not many 3rd party user groups - but I just found out about the directory service (shame on me, maybe? can't seem to find groups though)
    5. protocol features/stabilization is a moving target and most of the fancy new features don't really interest me (i don't care much about audio/video)
    6. stabilization of code/dependencies would help package the server/client in more linux distros, which I think would help adoption among the tech folk

    Finally a couple of points on some of the other comments:

    • multi device support - no protocol out there can do multi device properly (not signal, none really) so i'm ok with biting the bullet on this
    • VC funding is a drag - but I am still thankful that they clearly specified the chat protocol separate from the message relay, which means that even if the chat app dies, SMP could still be used for other stuff.
126 comments