Running a SimpleX chat SMP server now, anyone is welcome to use it and the architecture of the network means that I'll have no visibility into messages or who talks to who using it. Address: smp://HWK6x65IcNpRyGDQUtOMSSofcQv2D72-NbEmqg-SwAE= @smp .sethforprivacy.com Or use QR below: image If you want to learn more about SimpleX, you can listen in to my latest Opt Out episode: Really loving just about everything to do with SimpleX recently.

Replies (20)

First time looking into this. The protocol doesn't seem to mention how the encryption is done ( ). Also let's assume all data is encrypted - you will still have visibility into which IP address the connection came from & the timing, right?
As mentioned in the pod network-level privacy isn't a core focus right now, but there is native Tor integration (via SOCKS5 proxy) in SimpleX that can be easily enabled if that is a concern.
Not that I know of ATM, but I'm not very high on group chats in apps like this. We talked about it on the pod episode, but the network architecture is ideal for direct chats (or very small groups) as you have to have direct, two-way connections to each group participant. Group chats don't really need anonymity or e2ee in the same way as direct chats (as they're publicly joinable) so I prefer using platforms like Matrix for that use-case.
We did briefly touch on using it for group chats, he mentioned he doesn't recommend it for large groups for the reasons I mentioned. The design decisions made just mean it's not ideal for large groups, but it doesn't need to serve that purpose. Why do you need anonymity, e2ee on each message, and contact isolation in a *public* chat? I think there's usually a lot of confusion on what benefits are provided by more privacy-preserving alternatives for large public group chats. Definitely do need a round 2, though, and will absolutely be doing one!
I understand there are tradeoffs and an initial design (narrow) scope. However, the guest said it eloquently himself that as hardware and software improve we can dream of better things than what as initially planned. I disagree with you that we don't need to be anonymous/private in public large group chats. You choose to use the same nym in all of them and that is your decision. But others might not feel comfortable being in 2 conflicting groups knowing that 1 of the participants might cross check the social graph and find out a bunch of groups you are on as well.
Easy nyms for each group are probably the best feature in SimpleX for that, and the only real reason why group chats might be worth it to me. I'd definitely be interested if they were able to provide a server for groups that offloaded the network/compute necessary as he mentioned them wanting to do! That might make it a solid fit for large groups as well, at least for those willing to host a simple server.
I used it recently and i really like the anonymous communication design such as one id per conversation it's more anonymous than session in his conception