What's the value of the in-app currency being a cryptocurrency (putting aside hype/pr), vs calling it a virtual currency, a Mysql database with a API on top?
Dropping to a technical level, if the miners are all run by Telegram, then I think it's just a pointless overhead over Mysql. On the other hand, if anybody can run miners, I don't comprehend what value that adds, what it means.
Telegram is hugely popular in the cryptocurrency community to the point that multiple traders I know monitor Telegram community engagement as a primary indicator to bet on small cap coins.
Telegram founder is also big into cryptocurrency and owns a bunch of bitcoin . I think after kik  and Status  this was inevitable.
I don't understand: Wouldn't Apple just remove their app from the app once they touch payments? Someone will be bitten by compliance, and if Telegram is able to circumvent that then the bucket stops with Apple.
This is what has stopped me from doing payment in my apps until now - you never know when some apple or google employee decides to smash you in the face with the ban hammer.
I am a happy user of Telegram but I don't think re-inventing ethereum with a small team of developers is a great idea. But then again, using existing tech gives you fewer opportunities for cash grabs...
Integrating cryptocurrency within an easy to use chat environment has added value. Gitlab and Github have chatops, irc had chatops for ages, there were bots for twitter... chatops for payment solutions/providers/oracles is just automation. 'Ok Google, please pay HN 1 Gbyte for the inspiration.'
See for a good example how Byteball is doing this in their Android client, encrypted chat inside their wallet, chat with bots and oracles and chat with other people to send 'MBytes' to their wallet or using e-mail with a 'claim' link. I paid my lunch that way to colleagues (who are now stuck with MBytes to play with).
To get around the Apple walled garden you could even make gateway GBYTE/NEO/XBT bots for Discord, Matrix/Riot or IRC.
I fail to see why this is valuable in any way. Why would this raise even a million, let alone half a billion?
The ability of a cryptocurrency to overcome attack is based on the amount of computational power expended on hashing.
As more and more standalone cryptocurrencies are launched, the total amount of computational power expended on each will decrease and therefore make each more vulnerable to a 51% attack.
This problem is especially pertinent to niche currencies like Telegram's which are tied to a specific company service rather than those trying to act as a general unit of storage or exchange like Bitcoin or even an industry or economy wide tool like Ripple's XRP which. The more specific a currency's use case, the less processing power that will be dedicated to processing that currency's blockchain. And the more vulnerable it will be.
This seems like a real problem for the ecosystem as a whole.
What if everybody starts making their coins, Amazon, Facebook, Chinese companies, etc. Suddenly it sounds like I'll end up paying tx fees to convert coins. Doesn't sound very good... And what currency should I get my salary in?
Kik has their own crypto called Kin
A lot lot lot of crypto projects use Telegram for their official chat lines.
What is preventing every app/service to launch their own crypto currency? It looks like in these times it is in their own interest to launch their own crypto currency than adopting an existing one as they stand to make billions. In that scenario do we say bitcoin and their ilk is failing or succeeding?
Is this solving a real problem? Video game consoles have had online stores with their own virtual currency for a long time now. Why not just go that route? Other than marketing reasons, why bother with a full on cryptocurrency for Telegram? Are the benefits worth the environmental costs of mining (assuming a similar to Bitcoin technology)?
I heard of an interesting conspiracy theory that Telegram & Mr. Durov are the grandiose project of the Russian secret service. Mr. Durov's company VKontakte that is the clone of Facebook in Russia is now fully controlled by structures affiliated to Kremlin after Mr. Durov was allowed to sell the company and leave Russia. The theory says that he was allowed to do so in exchange of building fully controlled global IM which is secure on paper but transparent to certain observers. BS? Probably! But if telegram is successful in creating global in-app purchase system that is centralized(the article mentions that) and controlled by Kremlin, that would be an awesome undercover operation, the one of a bigger caliber than Trump's election.
> Messaging apps shouldn't make money
An interview which of course does not bind him nor the company to that philosophy, but it is slightly encouraging.
"Instant Hypercube Routing"
This all sounds a bit .. timecube?
This is a disaster, as it will likely succeed and in doing so make the entire world less secure.
Telegram is not a secure messaging platform, despite marketing themselves as such.
Signal has built a simple, seamless, and beautiful messaging platform whose security is based on solid cryptography, not marketing, bug contests, or chasing the latest tech fad.
So ICO is the new Kickstarter?
I suggested about six months ago that Signal should have its own ICO/cryptocurrency. Good way to get an open source project funded. Look at Brave, IPFS, and others.
Does WeChat have its own cryptocurrency or do its users just transfer fiat (ie yuan) into it?
Already excited about the upcoming lawsuit, US government vs Telegram.
I'm all for it.
Theres plenty of good cryptocurrencies now, it doesn't seem like theirs is going to be that useful. Tons of them have thousands of people looking to spend it on too.