this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
34 points (97.2% liked)
XMPP
691 readers
1 users here now
XMPP (aka Jabber) is the community-owned standard for real-time federated messaging.
JoinJabber.org admin support chat
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Australia has had phone number portability for well over 20 years. This means that for basically everyone, the phone number they had when they first got a mobile phone is the one they use today. Phone numbers are amazing in that they are simultaneously a stable code from which we can contact someone we know, but they are also abstract and therefore deniable (AKA "new phone who dis?").
What we have today is not a network effect problem, but an identity problem. Not only does XMPP give you a pretty unreliable identity, that identity, well, identifies you to everyone. Everyone knows dillekant@slrpnk.net is me, even people who aren't logged in.
Signal gets around this by piggy backing off your phone number, a thing people trust. Basically any traction Signal has is because of this piggy-backing. It can also use this technique to prevent a bunch of spamming / aid in moderation. Matrix, which the article also mentions, also gets around a bunch of issues through centralisation. XMPP servers need to do this manually, have moderation, etc. You also cannot guarantee portability the way you can with phone numbers.
One possibility is to do the same trick. Piggy back off phone numbers. Create some sort of attestation framework with phone numbers, then have some list of servers which will automatically create a UUID-named account based on that attestation. Now servers can come and go, and the client just needs to create a new attestation. This sort of works like a sea of servers and the client just uses the nearest one to create an account and fetch attestation information. However, it also has one of the biggest downsides of Signal: Needing a phone number.
The other trick is to use some sort of externalised identity framework, maybe openid or Solid, which means someone has to pay for the Solid ID, but not for the actual messaging framework. I wonder if that just shifts the problem one step over though. The big disadvantage here is that the deniability / anonymity is completely gone.
The root of the problem feels like DNS, and XMPP anchors off it. Maybe the right solution is something peer to peer, but then why not just use that as the messaging platform.
On this topic deltachat has come up with a beautiful solution I believe. Your identity is your public key, and servers are used solely to relay stuff from one end to the other. You can have 10 "accounts" on 10 different servers, servers can fall and it's still ok because there are 9 still up.
The con is that you don't have a simple, publicly usable pointer to you like a mail address or a phone number. Turns out it's the best defense against spam, creepy weirdos, trolls, so it's not that problematic.