Can /g/ explain this mystery that's confusing tech

>>52865265
It is a nice number

File: Screenshot_2016-02-08-13-51-24.png (735KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1080x1920px

Join our telegram group

File: OOOOOO.gif (799KB, 200x189px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 200x189px

>>52865280
SHHHHHHH

200 is too little
50 is too little
6 is too little

combine them and its not too little

>>52865280
no

File: 1316426862056.gif (8KB, 189x189px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 189x189px

>>52865280
The byte max value is actually 255 though, not 256.

>>52865331
integers in most languages start at 0

>>52865283
I would if I had invite link.

>>52865346
*array counts

whatever, you get the idea

File: 1434050997213.jpg (38KB, 386x363px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 386x363px

>>52865331
and 0 is the first value, you dumb shitnugget

>>52865331
think about this a little more anon

hint: 0-7 are 8 different numbers

>>52865386
>hint: 0-7 are 8 different numbers
How does this magic work?

>>52865404
http://reddit.com/

File: 1450577625086.jpg (28KB, 499x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 499x480px

>>52865283
>"Join our telegram group"
>doesn't give link

How am I supposed to join you stupid nigger?

>>52865404
It's because 7 ate 9

It is a mystery. It is not as if memory is that tight.

>>52865363
and? the max value is still 255 for an unsigned byte, not 256 like the post he's quoting said.

>>52865355
>>52865428
Message @botmenot
Message !unblock or ! Around 5 times
Type !join g

Enjoy the iranian free group

>>52865283
If I want to talk to some fucking bezems I'd just go for a walk.

>>52865437
How many different numbers can you represent with a byte?

>>52865456
256, but that's not the max value.

>>52865437
>array users[256];
>what is users[0]?

>>52865465
Ok then we are in agreement

Carry on

>>52865456
+1, you can't have a group with 0 persons.

>>52865507
Are we still baiting? If it's an array, people can be stored in the 0th slot...

>>52865518
Isn't it against the TOS to refer to people as zeroes? It should be because that's problematic.

>>52865518
Are you pretending to be retarded? Just for printing.

>>52865312
it's too big?

>>52865536
Come on dude, I know you're baiting, but stop. You're making /g/ look worse than it already is.

>>52865484
that's when you have no friends

>>52865312
200506

who needs that many people!

>>52865518
The 0 slot in an array cant be used to store anything

>>52865682
That's a good one. Haha. But you can in slot arr[0]

File: wut.jpg (65KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1024x576px

>>52865682

>mfw americans use sms so they cant even groupchat properly

top keke

>>52865283
no thanks.
Cuck app

File: smile, wait for flash.jpg (17KB, 640x406px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x406px

>>52865507
Are you fucking crippled

2^8

>>52865346
>>52865363
>>52865386
>>52865484
>>52865518
YOU DUMB FUCKS !
You can't fucking store anything in the 0th slot of an array, that one is reserved for the NSA backdoor !

>>52865265
2^8 = 256, it's not hard to figure out.
256 is a nice round number, better than 250 or 200.

>>52865437
An 8 bit integer has 256 values with it's highest value being 255.
You can store 256 values in an 8bit integer, because 0.

That author LITERALLY can't even.

8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
etc

>>52865565
>you make /g/ look worse
>namefags for attention
ok

File: rayray.jpg (205KB, 1050x750px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1050x750px

>>52866650
so, you found out,
we need to "talk"

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.

>>52865283
why a group and not a channel?

File: (ﺧ益ﺨ).png (109KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1024x1024px

>>52868387
Yeah they should have used a long int so you could have a group chat with 4 billion people.

programmers just get hard for certain numbers

it's like liking traps, but a sexual fetish for numbers

File: _20160208_204627.jpg (30KB, 1080x161px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1080x161px

>>52868517

>>52868459
Because the channel's unsecure mate.

>>52865265
>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.

>>52869325
condolences

> all the autismos in this thread implying
it has nothing to with the way they store it, they might as well picked 6969

So "0" means that 1 person is in the group? Hmm.

>>52871340
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.

>>52871402
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.

>>52871474
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.

>>52871507
Yeah.

>>52867977
Anyone with an unnecessary trip is delusional, filter them out for a better /g/

>>52865331
>implying chat rooms with 0 people can exist

Seriously though, shouldn't it be 255 if you're going to code the contact amount on 8 bits?
256 means you're using a 9th bit that will only be used when you have 256 contacts.

>>52865440
>Message @botmenot
>Message !unblock or ! Around 5 times
>Type !join g
>Enjoy the iranian free group
What?

File: suicide.jpg (18KB, 720x478px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 720x478px

>>52865283
DAILY REMINDER TELEGRAM IS PLACEBO-TIER BROKEN CRYPTO

>>52872538
If clients have IDs ranging from 0 to 255, that's 256 total clients.

>>52872833
Prove it

>>52873534
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+telegram+bad

>>52873624
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+telegram+bad
Literally none of the links that page showed had any evidence of your claim.

File: nsa spying.jpg (96KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x581px

>>52873801
>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
underageb&

the assholes in this thread who can't into fucking counting, much less binary, are making me want to quit /g/.

>>52872538
this shit is ridiculous. do you listen to yourself? what the fuck is fucking wrong with you?

>>52873851
The burden of proof is on you. Quit your ad hominem and show it.

File: 1430031263680.gif (789KB, 444x272px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 444x272px

>>52873910
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.

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6916860

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.

UPDATE

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.

>>52866645
This
can't believe it took 2 hours for this response

>>52865265

nice digits

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

>>52871039
this desu

>>52874192
>256 is the maximum number you can store in 8 bits.
Wrong. 256 is the maximum number of numbers you can store in 8 bits.

>>52874273
this
>>52874192
you were looking for 255 brah

>>52866650
What are they going to do with a bit?

>>52874192
>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.

File: 1438828254117.jpg (49KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x535px

Can someone tell me the point of apps like this? Are you actually scare of the NSA reading your texts to your mom?

>>52874364

It's mostly for poor people who don't get cellular service

>>52874364
In the case of whatsapp:
group messaging
voip
internet sending general, better than mms or sms

>>52865283
So that you can post full first and last names on /g/? No thanks man

File: 1454966931502.png (128KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 308x308px

>>52874364
Nice try, NSA.

>>52865265
bonus points if they use ints to represent user IDs within the chat

There really isn't a reason 256 has to be the limit as opposed to 250 or 300

>>52868387
>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

>>52874404
My brother uses something like this for his international gf rather than spending money on an international texting plan.

>>52871402
>IT people

We aren't machines, doofus

>>52874512
>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.

>>52874514

Whatsapp = texting for cucks

confirmed

>>52874588
>better featured, free messenger
>you shouldn't use it because its free
Basically what you're saying.

>>52874585
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

>telegay
>whatsgoy
>signal

wtf happened to irc?
fucking kids.

>>52874806
w-whats wrong with signal ;__; (secureSMS in particular)

>>52865265
>Millennials

>>52874364
>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.

>>52874666
>>free messenger

>Belongs to the facebook botnet
>Free
Why are you on /g/ again?

>>52874951
Telegram is pretty based desu

the reason is, whatsapp feels that the overhead of encrypting messages to be read by 255 other recipients is acceptable.

it's the only real reason for the limitation.

>>52865265
Rather than a dev arbitrarily using an unsigned byte, a dev probably just arbitrarily set it to 1 << 8 and stored it in an int.

File: 1337656676215.png (57KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x500px

>>52872443
KEK

File: 1441616458932.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>52865265
>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.