@delta @alandes @lyyn

I second that. I like the edit and delete features. For future I only wish this will eventually become more 'bullet proof' like I mentioned. *Without* sacrificing the UX.

This means that it should be clear that either of this features is kindof 'voluntary' because a recipient can always keep a copy of the earlier message saved elsewhere. This should (and must) be transparently communicated to users. 1/2

@delta @lyyn

Exactly that is my idea behind saying we need more resilience against rubberhose attacks. Reduce attack surface (social enginering ones), make such attacks futile. No bulletproof crypto algorithm can substitute that and i see times coming where people need such features.

@delta @cehteh I'm generally okay when some feature is not implemented because of simplification or different priorities. In this scenario there can be a fork with "advanced functionality", and not in a bad sense. With this feature, though, people (and companies) tend to think that making software "do the right thing" is more important than making it obey its user. And in such situation this fork with "advanced functionality" becomes some kind of "hacking tool" for "bad actors" which want to do something socially unacceptable. I don't think that not deleting messages is something bad. It should be something people should think of as a possibility, not hoping that some company or software will give them guarantees about. And not having this toggle reinforces people's belief that it is "right" and "reasonable" to expect the deletion to work. "On Telegram if somebody does this they get banned, and here I can feel safe too, because there is no way to disable this".