Wow, that article is load of bull.
The ostensible reasons...
https://simplex.chat/docs/simplex.html#comparison-with-p2p-messaging-protocols
Discussion
I don't know, just reporting what i read...
"Many tools using DHT technology have no adequate protection against sybil attacks, therefore sender or recipient could be isolated from the network by an attacker."
https://secushare.org/comparison
"The state of XMPP security is a strong argument against decentralization in messengers, in my opinion."
No worries, it's just I spent some time reviewing the `hyper-protocol` sources, they use the same ratchet system as signal/telegram but in a p2p manner. A Sybil attack or network takeover can only prevent you from gaining connection to your known peer, whilst using a server is the very definition of having a man in the middle.
I'm sorry if I overreacted.
Oops, brainfart, i meant NOISE not ratchet.
Please don't shoot me.
No problem, i think debate about protocol design is constructive because no one has deployed anything that addresses all of the privacy, performance and stability issues that have been identified. Every messaging system represents some kind of compromise. But i do think Keet is very interesting, and appreciate the developers intent to create "the most unstoppable communication application".
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/keet-the-decentralized-communications-app
Qualitative links, still enjoying the read, I admit the first one triggered me cause it highlighted all of the tradeoffs of keet and tradeins of simplex, obvious marketing.
But yes as you say, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, and the rest is called design 🙂
More discussion of SimpleX here