Can /g/ explain this mystery that's confusing tech journalists everywhere?
and 0 is the first value, you dumb shitnugget
>"Join our telegram group"
>doesn't give link
How am I supposed to join you stupid nigger?
Written in C++ and they used a char instead of a more appropriate data type, because no one told them that they weren't working with some shitty legacy system with limited memory, I assume.
Yeah they should have used a long int so you could have a group chat with 4 billion people.
>Can /g/ explain this mystery that's confusing tech journalists everywhere?
Yes, it's called "clickbait".
Stupid people like you click links with articles like that, the advertisements on the website get loaded and the website makes a tiny amount of money as somebody has viewed the ads.
Now fuck off, you facebookcancershitfuck.
WhatsApp was my favourite app and it became dead when facebook bought it.
I uninstalled it and I don't miss it desu.
Array's are zero-based, the first element is zero.
What is smaller than 1? 0!
numerous IT people have criticized the way kids are teached to count, they should start at 0 because 0 IS a number and smaller than 1.
So that's how it is. But that still means that when the application needs to send the number of participants, it would be exactly one too large to be sent as 1 Byte.
Unless, of course, you are not counted.
...Which probably makes sense, I mean, why should the server send your client information about yourself? Your client knows better who he is.
This makes sense now. Thanks.
Even when they do send information, the first member of an indexed array is indexed with 0, that's just how it goes.
Even if it would only send information about the other 255 participants, then still the first member of the array would have index 0 and index 255 is empty.
DAILY REMINDER TELEGRAM IS PLACEBO-TIER BROKEN CRYPTO
>he's too dumb to Google
>he doesn't know telegram's been rekt since inception
>he trusts crypto based on app store ratings
>he can't do his own research and demands spoonfeeding
the assholes in this thread who can't into fucking counting, much less binary, are making me want to quit /g/.
this shit is ridiculous. do you listen to yourself? what the fuck is fucking wrong with you?
TL;DR: No, Telegram is not secure.
Telegram's security is built around their home spun MTProto protocol. We all know that the first rule of Cryptography is Don't Roll Your Own Crypto. Especially if you aren't trained cryptographers. Which the Telegram people most certainly aren't.
The team behind Telegram, led by Nikolai Durov, consists of six ACM champions, half of them Ph.Ds in math. It took them about two years to roll out the current version of MTProto. Names and degrees may indeed not mean as much in some fields as they do in others, but this protocol is the result of thougtful and prolonged work of professionals.
Math Ph.Ds are not cryptographers. The protocol they invented is flawed. Here is a nice blog post explaining why. In addition to that, Telegram has issued a rather ridiculous challenge offering a reward to anyone who can break the protocol. Except that the terms they set makes even the most ridiculously weak protocol difficult to break. Moxie Marlinspike has a nice blog post explaining why the challenge is ridiculous.
So, no. Telegram is by no means secure. For commonly accepted definitions of secure, not the one Telegram made up.
If you want a real secure means of communication on your phone, look to more reputable projects such as Open WhisperSystems or the rather well known Cryptocat.
09 January 2015: A new 2^64 attack On Telegram has been announced.
12 December 2015: A new paper demonstrating that MTProto is not IND-CCA secure.
256 is the maximum number you can store in 8 bits.
this could make sense when you are dealing with sheer volume that whatsapp is dealing with.
Then again, a terabyte costs 60 bucks
>this could make sense when you are dealing with sheer volume that whatsapp is dealing with.
Na, what they were doing before was using a single byte to address the members in a group chat but limited the maximum value to 100.
They've just removed the maximum value limit.
Can someone tell me the point of apps like this? Are you actually scare of the NSA reading your texts to your mom?
>they weren't working with some shitty legacy system with limited memory, I assume.
The sole reason that whatsapp got big in the early days was that it ran on both new-gen smartphones like the first iPhone and HTC hero and the older Qtek/Blackberry/Symbian things. They support a ton of legacy systems, that's their game and they're doing it quite well.
Koum said 8120 times that he prefers running on everything over features
We aren't machines, doofus
>Koum said 8120 times that he prefers running on everything over features
Then he is a liar, as they didn't support WebOS what broke WebOS's neck.
I know 2 people that had Palm Pres and literally 2 people got Androids shortly afterwards because of WA.
They only got ground in Europe when they started because the US had free texting already.
It could be me, but I was a pretty active phone enthousiast back then and have never seen a webOS device in Europe ever so I guess that gives them a reason.
Not defending him btw (he says a lot of stupid stuff) but I do respect their implementation of 'do one thing and do it right'
Due to the nature of computer data structures, the maximum number of possible users that can connect is always going to be 2^something -1
In the previous version, it seems they restricted the number of users to 100 to make it a round number, but now for whatever reason they removed that restriction.
Actually, it is a good question. Why did they do it? What's wrong with round numbers that they decided to change it
>Can someone tell me the point of apps like this?
- Works on laptops, phones, tablets, etc.
- Easy to share pictures and files.
Why did you post a reaction picture?
You can do that with Telegram, you can't do that with SMS.
>retard journalists can't take the time to understand basic shit about the topics they report on
Funny how as the world and our lives get more and more saturated with tech, the less and less people seem to understand it.