Elon Musk says XChat is rolling out to all, but questions remain about its alleged security
Elon Musk on Sunday announced that a new version of X's Direct Messaging (DM) feature, XChat, was rolling out with support for features like vanishing messages, encryption, and the ability to share files, alongside its audio and video calling support.
The new features aren't yet broadly available, as XChat only recently started beta testing among a select group of users. However, Musk said that the X team expects to bring XChat to all users sometime this week, unless they encounter scaling issues during the rollout.
In a series of X posts, Musk also noted that the updated version of XChat has been built on Rust with 'Bitcoin style' encryption and a 'whole new architecture.' It's not clear what he means by Bitcoin-style encryption, given that Bitcoin itself cannot be described as 'encrypted.' (Bitcoin uses public key cryptography and signatures for its security.)
As a result, some are debating whether Musk is using the terminology simply as marketing speak, if he misunderstands encryption, or if he used the wrong word — perhaps meaning to say 'cryptography' instead.
The X owner has often spoken of wanting to make X's DMs a challenger to encrypted platforms like Signal and iMessage. However, calling XChat a service with only 'Bitcoin-style encryption' calls into question whether it's really a potential competitor.
In addition, Musk shared on X that XChat users can now make audio and video calls without a phone number across all platforms.
Ahead of this launch, X said it was pausing work on encrypted DMs, presumably because XChat would soon replace the older system.
Unfortunately for X users, the service has faced some significant instability over the past week or so, as multiple outages left users unable to browse timelines and use other features, including XChat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Israel obliterated Iran's security with 'covert proximity warfare': Aaron Cohen
All times eastern Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Army turns 250 — heroes honored in all-day salute to freedom
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Padilla incident triggers broad reaction on Capitol Hill: 'Disgusting situation'
All times eastern Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Army turns 250 — heroes honored in all-day salute to freedom
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Higher Oil Prices Mean Less GDP
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks after casting his ballot during the runoff ... More presidential election in Tehran on July 5, 2024. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images) The shale revolution has been a huge boon for America, producing an enormous amount of income, tax revenue and employment as well as reducing CO2 emissions. At the same time, by reducing our net oil imports, they have substantially improved our energy security. But the simple metric of net imports understates the complexity of energy security. Energy vulnerability is often treated as nothing more than reliance on imports from foreign countries, and that is certainly a crucial element but hardly the only one. Conversely, the fact that the U.S. still imports as much as eight million barrels a day of oil overstates our vulnerability: lost imports would not mean a shortage for domestic consumers, as that oil is swapped out for domestic supplies for the sake of economic efficiency, and producers can simply retain crude that is currently exported. The Figure below breaks down the source of gross imports; the decline in oil from OPEC is pronounced, while the rise of Canadian oil imports, due to higher oil sands production, exaggerates the security of our supply, albeit only slightly. U.S. Oil Imports (thousand barrels per day) On the one hand, despite ongoing tension with Canada, they are unlikely to cut off sales to the U.S. for political reasons. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that in a new disruption of global oil supply, such as from unrest in Russia or war in the Middle East, Canadian oil would continue to be delivered to American refiners. In theory, Canada could use the U.S. for the transshipment of oil to better paying overseas customers, although given the globalized nature of the oil market, prices should not be significantly different elsewhere. Of course, should American politicians (foolishly) respond to a global oil crisis by restricting exports of domestic crude, U.S. oil prices would presumably drop below global prices, encouraging Canadian companies to export their oil elsewhere. Such a populist move by the U.S. would be detrimental and the impact multiplied if politicians tried to prevent Canadian companies from selling their oil onwards, mostly through the Gulf Coast ports. Should, say, a country like China offer attractive deals to Canadian companies for additional supply (similar to what happened in 1979), the political calculus becomes more complex. But this highlights another way the globalized oil market affects energy security: even if the U.S. is well-supplied with oil, a global oil crisis will translate into higher domestic oil prices. Absent political intervention, U.S. prices would rise to match global oil prices, meaning even with our current energy independence, a new oil crisis would inflict economic damage. Certainly, now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, higher oil prices would improve not worsen the trade balance. Still, sending the money from East Coast consumers to Southwest producers will have a deflationary impact on the economy because higher oil prices have an effect similar to a tax hike. Consumers would spend more for gasoline and reduce other spending accordingly. It is generally thought that a tax hike lowers GDP by 2-3 times the increased taxes, so that an increase in taxes equal to 1% of GDP yields a 2-3% reduction in GDP. Tax Increases Reduce GDP | NBER An oil price increase does not have precisely the same effect, because the money goes not from the private sector to the government but from one part of the private sector (consumers) to another (oil producers). Still, a $10/barrel increase in oil prices equates to roughly $35 billion in higher household expenditures, or about 0.1% of GDP. So, back of the envelope calculation suggests that GDP would drop somewhere on the order of 0.2% for every $10/barrel increase in oil prices. This effect is clearly seen in historical GDP data, as the figure below shows, although there are obviously many confounding factors. In all likelihood, the impact now would be less than in the past because our oil trade balance is positive; net exports, at 2 million barrels per day, will translate into modest but significant economic benefits. Still, in the case of a prolonged period of $100 per barrel oil, which many think could be achieved if the Middle East situation worsens significantly, a GDP loss of 0.5% is quite likely. Change in Real GDP (percent) At present, it appears unlikely that Middle Eastern oil supply will be affected by the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Attacks on shipping or the Straits of Hormuz would boost prices but are unlikely to persist beyond a few weeks. More worrisome would be an Israeli attack on Iranian oil facilities, although at present, such is not expected. So, $100 oil for several months would not automatically translate into a recession, but would have a notable impact on GDP growth, especially if the Fed raises interest rates as higher oil prices increase inflation. But an oil price spike will definitely worsen consumer and business confidence. As much as it would be nice for cash-rich Southwesterners to spend their increased income on Maine lobster and New England clam chowder, a prolonger period of higher oil prices--$100 or more—will be disruptive enough to threaten at least significant economic slowing and potentially tip us into a recession.
