End-to-end encryption is a solved problem.

email or any messaging channel you want. it doesn't matter how truthful the provider is because you're using actual asymmetric public crypto. why don't more people learning it nowadays? why not on /g/? is /g/ can't into technology?

>>106036253 (OP)
I know how, but plebs I know don't. Therefore it doesn't matter.

>>106036253 (OP)
Not really convenient for an image board. You'd have to send out a separate encrypted message for each person you're talking to after exchanging keys first. That said I do remember some anons doing e2ee right on the board a while ago.

how do you use it on discord?

>>106036253 (OP)
. Most people are stupid.

. Stupid people don't think there's a need for privacy.

. Even if they did, they'd still be too stupid to learn it.

. Even if they managed to learn it, they'd have nobody else to use it with anyways.

>>106039618
Defeatist loser

>>106036253 (OP)
Using encryption when you don't know how it works doesn't make it that secure

>>106036253 (OP)
Honored my rambles on the proton mail thread inspired you to write this.

>>106037594
>>106039618
There's no reason this can't be mostly if not entirely automated. A local app could easily have the option to import your keys but also provide a button for creating a new pair. (also add an export button so people can move to another client without actually knowing where their keys are.) You can automate public key sharing amongst other GPG users with public repos. If person your talking to has public key shared, encrypt message with it otherwise shoot plain text. Use visual to make it obvious that it's encrypted or not. Just need to make it cool like imessage using blue vs green bubbles, everyone figured that out really quick and they nevered cared that had anything to do with encryption.

>>106039695
Going further, web of trust is built right into gpg keys. Using it for email and messaging apps (could bring the same keys between multiple apps) could help with spam issues as you can build credit quickly

>>106036253 (OP)
GnuPG requires from you to not be a total retard.
So you can't use it to talk to normies.

>>106039628
It's the truth. I myself use it more or less regularly with a remnant of privacy-conscious people I'd meet back in the 90's during the dawn of cipherpunk remailers, but I haven't had any luck getting anybody else to jump in.

As it stands in 2025, gpg's utility has dropped to nearly zero. Either everybody does it or nobody benefits.

>>106039695
>There's no reason this can't be mostly if not entirely automated.
Correct, but first you have to deal with the issue of normies (including normie developers) not caring to begin with.

>>106040316
I already did. Read to the end.

Also you have to wonder why they haven't allowed the currently implemented ciphers to be maxed out for the sake of extra security, as opposed to simply adding stronger ones like Serpent, which they refuse to do as well: https://dev.gnupg.org/T5680

I'm not buying the "legacy hardware reasons" cope.

>>106040425
I did. Just wanted to emphasize it's ultimatily a normie developer issue rather than a normie user one.

>>106040501
>according to its creator not the best cipher
You can still use Twofish if you don't like AES.

>>106038926
would be kinda interesting to set up a PGP imageboard where every post is encrypted by default and only trusted users get the key.