ShapeShift has added a buy/sell feature to the real time market data website CoinCap.io! You can now buy or sell ShadowCash straight from the market data website. Learn more about this here: http://bit.ly/1UVFZ7m

Guys, the HD test wallet has too many pixels to run on my Thinkpad T410!

In case anyone was wondering, new commits were posted to the testnet github branch... I took it upon myself to compile the new test version.

I found these inside the GUI:

<snip>

Banks stayed in stone age for hundreds of years and that's the reason they become the master slaveholder. Value is all about stability and integrity

<snip>

The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is above 1MB, the network still works well

Hello, I did the free upgrade from windows 8.1 -> windows 10. Now the SDC wallet doesn't work getting errors.. Can this be fixed?   I can't access my SDC now, bitcoin wallet works fine under windows 10.

And keep up the good work SDC team!

The beauty of the Shadow market will be the decentralizaion. There will be no "Dread Pirate Roberts" to catch.

#Privacy is a human right. It shouldn't be the price we accept to pay for just getting on the internet. #Shadow #SDC

This is starting to get boring now.
You think a single peer review of ShadowSend.v2 means it is perfect? No it does not.

It took years and several dozens if not hundreds of peer reviews on Bitcoin. What the Shadow development team has done is "put its money where its mouth is" and quite frankly has protected your investment for years to come by incentiving users to 1. peer review and 2. pre-disclose any security vulnerabilities so they can be fixed (this is exactly how ethical hackers work).

I wish you would start to look at the good people do rather than always the negative.

Over and out!

PoS is nowhere close to PoW in terms of research. At this point the economic incentives to attack most PoS coins have not been high enough to prove worthwhile.
I am not saying that PoS has no chance to succeed or that PoW is perfect. I am saying that at this point the chances of an existential threat to PoS are far greater than to PoW.

Ignoring all of that PoS distribution models including very brief PoW periods prior to PoS as employed by SDC frequently lead to unhealthy coin distribution.  As you can tell from my Twitter feed I have said some positive things about SDC in the past. However I have much more trust in XMR and BBR.  

I am also not a fan of the in wallet decentralized exchange plans of SDC. Besides believing it should be separate from the coin itself for many reasons (like Open Bazaar model), it reminds me of vaporware based on photoshop promotion by CLOAK and other coins.

I've always viewed shadowcash as a scam. Not only that but it's complete bloatware and the coding is corrupted. That alone makes me question it's security.

Monero (XMR) is flawless in every sense, and fully anonymous... Everyone loves monero, especially the deepwebs.

I think the shadow devs are too busy working to be spending time browsing btt. Every minute counts. Its an arms race at the end of the day, whether people will admit it or not.  

I don't know about the SDC launch, I wasn't there.
The SDC distribution process of 100% of the supply going out in two weeks is terrible.
<snip>

2. Being forked from Bitcoin is a blessing and a curse. Merging bug and security fixes from upstream Bitcoin (which will remain the target of more powerful proving and attack than any altcoin for the foreseeable future) is great, but it is going to be progressively more difficult to do so. The risk is exceedingly great that (as has just happened over the last few days) Bitcoin will reveal a security hole, and a cryptocurrency forked from it will not have implemented the fix.

3. Bitcoin's use of secp256k1 is...ok, but given that SafeCurves (Daniel J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange) view secp256k1 as unsafe, the use of the same curve is a little bit of a risk (Monero uses Curve25519).

In short, the criteria Secp256k1 fails are not generally a concern for us. The curves' recommended by the authors did not exist when Bitcoin was created and might have been preferable.  But The popular curves in widespread use today fail in generally worse ways (e.g. no evidence that they aren't cooked by the NSA) and the curve we use offers very high speed implementations and is safe for our use, even if something else would have allowed simpler implementations.

There are other criteria that the implementations of the recommended curves fail— e.g. it looks like curve25519 requires the most significant bit of the private key is set. Beyond reducing the keyspace this has the effect of making it impossible to use schemes like BIP32 for public derivation of addresses. (At least, while using the standard constant time implementations).  Perhaps more interesting is that the page does not penalize curve25519 for having a non-one cofactor. As mentioned this reduces the rho-hardness, but since failure to handle it correctly has resulted in cryptographic weaknesses (e.g. in PAKE schemes). Cryptographic protocols need to multiply their values by the cofactor it's an implementation trap along the lines of the "completeness" examples and this is easier to get wrong if your cofactor is one as it is in secp256k1.