Ah, my bad. The REFERENCE implementation, written in Python, which was supposed to be supplanted by a faster, better implementation years ago, now has 10x less bugs.
> Sorry, you're complaining that we... did the thing you want us to do? But it took longer than you wanted? My heart bleeds.
Wasn't complaining. I don't use Matrix.
> Meanwhile, portable identities are also in active development (as part of P2P),
Portable identities should be how it works by default. Nobody should be asked to sign up with a server and share their email address and metadata with it.
It's not decentralized because it's federated, client-server chat software. This is more decentralized than Discord or what-have-you, but it requires reliance on multiple centralized internet services and authorities, as I outlined.
I'm well aware that FOSS projects tend to be underfunded. Matrix is an outlier with some large grants fueling the project and opaque organizational structure.
> What you seem to want is a peer-to-peer solution, which at this point in time is not something Matrix has built or claims to have built.
Peer-to-peer is not absolutely necessary (it can be both). There's nothing wrong with routing message through a network, but e2ee is absolutely necessary, and it took until May this year for Matrix to enable that feature by default. Most importantly, in Matrix, your identity is associated with and controlled by a homeserver. It's under someone else's control. That's not good... Your identity should be under your control. We've known how to do this with asymmetric encryption for at least a couple of decades.
A lot of Linux-y people, including myself, reject Matrix. It's not the solution it claims to be.
I could write a list of criticisms of Matrix's software products, organization, and track record, but the main problem is that we want an ip-native comms tool that's /actually/ decentralized.
Matrix is Open Source, federated, self-hosted Slack (plus voice calls). That's great, but that leaves you needing to trust a homeserver admin or host your own homeserver. Putting aside that there STILL isn't a finished homeserver implementation, you'll have to rely on a third party no matter what. Either it's hacker Joe (the admin of your homeserver), or the server hosting company that hosts your homeserver, or the DNS registrar who legally has to have your real identity...
It may be theoretically possible to host a homeserver without a domain name, but you'd still need to register your real name with an ISP to get a static IP.
Freedom from this kind of control should be baked into the software. Plenty of teams have tried it (retroshare, Scuttlebutt, etc.) but unfortunately none of them are quite there yet.