I’ll reiterate my statement as you didn’t address it.
If Signal wanted to block third party clients, they would have blocked them already.
I respectfully disagree. They could be waiting until it becomes a big issue. Right now that would just cost them good PR, but if somebody was using the signal network and their client became very popular they absolutely have expressed the desire, intent, and as you indicated the capability to do so.
They could be waiting until it becomes a big issue
I guess I don’t see that as a problem if its causing a big issue.
Let me throw it back to you: If you were providing a service and a third party client was using your resources and causing a “big issue” like you stated, would you not want to remediate the problem? Lets say you introduced a new feature, but it doesn’t work for 15% of your user base because they’re using an outdated third party client that may not get fixed for another year or two - if ever. What would you do?
Here’s another example, lets say someone develops a client that lets you upload significantly bigger files and has an aggressive retry rate that as more people start using your client, it starts increasing the hardware requirements for your infrastructure. Do you just say “oh well”, suck it up and deal with having to stand up more infrastructure due to the third party client doing things you didn’t expect? Is that reasonable?
https://hackertalks.com/comment/4806772
They have demonstrated history of asking third party clients to not use the signal name, and not use the signal network. The client that currently exists that do this do it against the wishes of the signal foundation
you keep moving the goal posts, Ive justified my position in the original comment.
By all means, use signal, I do. But let’s not deny the realities. I think we’ve covered all that we need to cover in this discussion thread. We don’t have to agree and that’s okay, and I wish you a good day, but I’m not going to respond anymore
