UPDATED SHADOWGO FOR ANDROID feat. SHADOWSEND V2… COMING SOON!
THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL AND FLEXIBLE ANONYMOUS CRYPTO-CURRENCY IS GOING MOBILE!Once this badboy is released it's really gonna turn the heat up for DRK and XMR who dont offer mobile wallets with anonymous send functionality. If you want to drop names here then fine, mymonero.com supports mobile phones and works since months and supports anonymity. So, XMR has a working mobile wallet, right now. So you are just wrong, next time if you make bad comparison to push your stuff, think twice. MyMonero is trusted privacy, because you have to trust some entity to hold your sight key. Thanks, but no thanks. |
|
|
|
The coin creator has set this up to be the perfect pump coin.
All coins mined in 11 days. So most people missed out. A few probably mined the most with their mining farms. Over the last couple months price didn't move much because a small group hold almost all the coin. They do some self buys / sells to make the coin look active and shake out the remaining people that they can.
Now they slowly raise the price so the profit takers can get out. Once that's done it's time to go up again.
People start buying so they don't miss out on the pump.
Then give everyone else a reason to buy and use the coin. That's the big one. Easiest way is to get the drug users that have lost bitcoins due to centralized markets.
Other coins always say, "blah and blah has such and such and we'll just add it." That's good and all but it's the users that keep coming back to buy the coin is what you want. That's why people are buying so many different coins. You buy 10 coins and hope 1 coin makes you a millionaire.
For what its worth, here is an interesting post from svojoe regarding the POW mining phase, and why it was cut short:
I was here on day two of mining, I consider myself one of only a handful of miners that are still here. The vast majority of large miners all sold ages ago for a quick profit. Being well connected and heavily involved from a hobbyist/supporter stand point I think that less than 10% of the total coins are still in the hands of the original miners including me.
The coin was launched twice and the PoW was cut short by a fair bit because some insanely powerful dark-hashrate came online on the network. It was the first time I had seen the secret proprietary asics in action. This dark hashrate I called the 'mad hasher' had 2+ times the total nethash of all other miners combined including the multipools! When this mad hasher showed up they started getting at times 60-70% of all blocks. There was a great emergency as the mad hasher would have taken nearly half the total supply. The devs quickly made the decision to cut the POW phase short to prevent the mad hasher from having to much supply. I thought it was the best way to protect the couple hundred or so actual miners who had been working hard on the coin from the start. I think it was the best option and greatly protected the distribution actually.
Me and several people combed the blockchain and eventually think we located the address used by the mad hasher, They sold the last on the second rise a couple weeks after PoW was over.
I actually think, that in typical 'good dev' fashion that SDC dev's don't have that man coins. I would actually prefer they did! Several other coins I have been heavily involved with had similar situations. Hell, Bushido of Vertcoin didn't even Mine his own coin! Several miners including myself took up a donation for him to get him a slice so if his coin took off he could at least buy a Honda civic or something haha.
I've been here since the near the beginning so I've seen how it has gone down. And that is why I am still here. The dev's (ryno, techno) specifically don't really seem to care about the markets, or PR or any of this junk I swim in. They just code.... This is why I think they don't have many SDC, Extremely easy tweaks and a few extra announcements all along this path could have us sitting on a much higher market cap. Instead... they just code....
|
|
|
|
what are these tokens i keep hearing about someone said to turn your coins into tokens whats that mean?
With ShadowCash there are two different units of account. There is SDC and there is also SDT (AKA Shadow). SDC is the transparent one and is similar to Bitcoin and can be tracked on the blockchain. Shadow Tokens (SDT) also known as "Shadow" are the anonymous tokens and use ring signatures, dual-key stealth addresses, and zero knowledge proofs for anonymity. You create the Shadow by destroying some of your SDC, and vice versa. To do this you need to send to a stealth address. Stealth addresses are much longer and begin with a small "s" compared to regular addresses begin with a big "S". In the wallet click new address, and click the box that says stealth address. For a good explanation of how it all works, I highly suggest examining this slide presentation carefully: http://shadowcash.info/display/shadow/Transact+AnonymouslyAWESOME LOL btw can this be our mascot?   Lol, we already have a mascot:  |
|
|
|
what are these tokens i keep hearing about someone said to turn your coins into tokens whats that mean?
With ShadowCash there are two different units of account. There is SDC and there is also SDT (AKA Shadow). SDC is the transparent one and is similar to Bitcoin and can be tracked on the blockchain. Shadow Tokens (SDT) also known as "Shadow" are the anonymous tokens and use ring signatures, dual-key stealth addresses, and zero knowledge proofs for anonymity. You create the Shadow by destroying some of your SDC, and vice versa. To do this you need to send to a stealth address. Stealth addresses are much longer and begin with a small "s" compared to regular addresses begin with a big "S". In the wallet click new address, and click the box that says stealth address. For a good explanation of how it all works, I highly suggest examining this slide presentation carefully: http://shadowcash.info/display/shadow/Transact+Anonymously |
|
|
|
Monkeys don't take drugs, aside from the occasional tranquilizer dart. We don't need them. But I'm looking forward to the Shadowsend fees! Hopefully there will be a lot of other things to buy too, then all the cleans with big stakes will have a way to get their coins back into the economy.
That's a scary thought- once it's determined drugs are sold with the coin then all staking wallets will be in receipt of drug proceeds, won't we?
With that logic, you could say all Bitcoin miners are also in receipt of drug proceeds. Since dark net market people probably pay fees to transfer their bitcoins or tumble them. |
|
|
|
I mean it sync's ok eventually, but it is so slow compared to other wallets i use.
For faster blockchain downloads you can use the bootstrap file. Instructions here: http://shadowtalk.org/topic/308/bootstrap-instructionsI believe the coins need a certain number of confirmations before being mature for staking. This is probably for the security of the network. |
|
|
|
|
There may be a correction back down as some take profits. But I wouldn't be surprised if we keep going up. This project is still way undervalued. If whales see an amazing project and the price so cheap, you can't blame them for buying it up. They will sell most of their stack later for more reasonable prices than this cheap stuff. That is how free markets work. Usually volume drops off on the weekend, so things may cool off for couple days, to be reignited on Monday.
|
|
|
|
|
The price was way undervalued for a long time and still is. In previous pumps we never got this much chatter about SDC. If you look on poloniex trollbox people are chatting up a storm about SDC. I never saw that before. In fact there used to be many days when SDC volume on poloniex was zero, sometimes for several days in a row. Now volume there is nearing the top 3 coins. This is really good, people are definitely becoming aware and finally giving Shadow the respect it deserves. I can only imagine what the price would be if Cryptsy wallet was working properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, price just hit 69K on Poloniex.
|
|
|
|
(context above, no need to quote on every single post). No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too:
I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper. Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL. Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth. What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said. That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you. Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs). It's a bunch of double talk imo. Well I wanted to leave  But I'm a bit confused as to what you are getting at to be honest. Ryno was not saying that Shadow>Shadow transfers are not direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs. Of course they are. They are basically the same as Monero from my understanding. What I believe he meant was that instead of having ONLY Shadow>Shadow transfers like Monero, they introduced a 2-way pegged token. Then he explained the reason why they used a token instead of direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs like Monero. He said its because of the direction they are striving and building towards. I could be wrong, but that was just my understanding of it. Hope this helps clear it up. |
|
|
|
(context above, no need to quote on every single post). No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too:
I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper. Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL. Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth. What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said. That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you. SNARKS aren't fully ready and trustless yet from what they have said so they are waiting for the tech to advance. They are striving for a goal of anonymity, and SNARKS look very promising, and could play a role in the future. There could be other solutions instead as well, and ryno said they are not limiting themselves to ideas. Hope that clears things up. I will be exiting this thread now. Please carry on, again we have same goal of anonymity and privacy. Its better to work with each other than against each other. |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper. So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text? While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped? I'm not buying (coins or story). shady as shit.
No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers. The code speaks for itself. The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin. Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation. So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting. Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition. It doesn't make people want to buy your coin. I'm commenting on the pattern of behavior with respect to the peculiar omission of a very interesting subset of footnotes not being referenced in the text, twice. The "oops, sorry, mistake" defense is very popular in crypto circles. Sometimes it is perfectly honest. Sometimes it is not. People will have to make up their own minds. As far as the technology, direction, etc. people can evaluate that best by looking at the actual project, not what you or I have to say about it. As for calling you a dumb shit, here's the context: As quoted by rynomster the lead SDC dev:
more pumping nonsense about "better anon" vaporware.
As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that. this is non-sequitur For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not. whats the ref?
Try this, dumb shit: No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too: More ignorant nonsense about SDC minting having anything to do with zerocoin, not copied from cryptonote, etc.
i.e. more or less exactly what I said SDC proponents constantly do.
Sigh. I guess the new iteration of this nonsense is "anonymous tokens are not just anonymous outputs." Hey dumb shit, that's exactly what they are in SDC. I was referring to ryno's own words: The reason we opted for anonymous tokens, instead of direct anonymous outputs to ringsigs, is because we're building towards direction we're heading in. What we're striving for... Encrypted values, with perfect nizkps, proving all values of inputs are real, without revealing any information about where they come from. We're looking at many things, like homomorphic encryption, snarks, etc... http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/976 snarks are advancing, along with many other ideas... We are not for limiting ourselves, but for bettering our [collective] future |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper. So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text? While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped? I'm not buying (coins or story). shady as shit.
No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers. The code speaks for itself. The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin. Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation. So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting. Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition. It doesn't make people want to buy your coin. |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper. |
|
|
|
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it! It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal. Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later? btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful. Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument. So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off. I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years. Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved. Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well. I would be more worried about devs or other players buying up 5% of the coins on the market because they are so cheap. At current prices 5% would only be worth about 110 bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Well I agree their whitepapers could have been more professionally done and been more in depth. But I do like what they have delivered so far. |
|
|
|
is this project still being actively developed? how many devs are there? how may hours a day about do they spend working on it? what are their credentials?
There was just an update to the wallet a day or two ago. Don't listen to fud. http://shadowtalk.org/topic/359/wallet-update-1-3-1-0wtf? how is that fud? he was just asking. obviously he saw sdc being pumped and checked it out here Yea. I saw the pump. I even bought 10 dollars worth at the pump valuations. But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want. I'm just deeply skeptical of any and all devs. I kind of just assume they are all scammers because 99% of them are. *edit* Is it true that the pow phase only lasted 2 weeks? If so how do you guys justify that? It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal. Which it should be because more distributed stake means attacks on the network are more expensive and confirmations are more secure. Please dont mistake hard questions for trolling. Welcome. I thought the POW phase was 3 weeks, but I'm not sure. I am not too worried about a short mining period because the price is so cheap. Probably most miners dumped their coins for cheap. If not, then the marketcap would be a lot more inflated. As it is, it seems very undervalued. If you have not yet, I highly suggest downloading the wallet and checking it out. Since its HTML wallet, I guess it allows the devs to add a lot more features. Its pretty impressive imo. |
|
|
|
The darkcoin profit taking theory appears to be corroborated by the rally in shadowcash.
Does anyone know if shadowcash is actively developed? Is there much evidence that the dev(s) are serious about their project?
They certainly put in the marketing effort. But I would guess most of us are disinclined to bother with a 2 week instamine PoW-> PoS coin. It was one week, after a few days they capped the mining to 7 days or so. They also killed the thread where i explained how they stole the bitmessage whitepaper. From my understanding it was a 3 week POW period. Any source showing it was only 7 days? The ShadowChat whitepaper sources bit-message, and has many similarities from what I read. That is no secret. The ShadowChat whitepaper is here: http://www.shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcoin-p2p-em.pdf You can link to the bitmessage paper at the end in the citations. I am not worried about a too short mining period. The price of SDC has been so cheap that it appears most of the miners dumped their coins cheaply. You can still scoop like 1% of the total supply of SDC for about 20 BTC. If anyone was cornering the market the price would be a lot higher. As the price goes up, larger holders will sell some of their stack, resulting in better distribution. As for being actively developed. The team seems very large, which is why DRK's Evan Duffield tried to acquire the ShadowCash team in the early days with their merger proposal. The devs are constantly putting out updates, fixing bugs, adding improvements. They now have an in-wallet block explorer for example that was added in the last couple of weeks. They are also working on updating the Android wallet now. They just released the designs of the soon to be implemented decentralized marketplace. I urge you to come into the IRC chat and see that the devs are very active. You can see the IRC chat logs here and see for yourself: http://shadowcash.io/ |
|
|
|
Just a reminder the designs for the marketplace have been released. We can thank CRZ. I believe he put in a huge amount of time and effort into it. I am pretty sure he worked many many hours on this, without compensation. Without him I doubt ShadowMarket could become a reality. I think we really need to show our support and donate a few Shadows. We need to support him and the rest of the devs if we want them to continue working hard. Just showing our appreciation is good for keeping up motivation and morale. Check the design and CRZ's donation address here: http://shadowtalk.org/topic/361/shadowmarket-progress-report/CRZ's donation addresses: BTC: 1o4nzUUXTDEGXCtEJomoyM1irn8Uxfg1D SDC: Sd9w1zqFhC5p2Q6Sf3hUXZ2zMRt3gU1CQr SDC STEALTH: smYk3SQfhxf8oZN9oEYwdyjeR9AtZBFYjNbcQMbQe1XP3oqp7cYR7gJEx3CkKWeEGoSb34uV2TJwxPE 7jWNe6FecCFgeCRHiTh2SbJ |
|
|
|
Just to clear this up, when sending SDC to Shadow, the more rings I opt before sending the more anonymous? What exactly are "rings" and how does changing the number up or down before I send to SDC address or Shadow address make any difference?
Yeah the more the ring size the better anonymity. But as you add more you kind of get diminishing returns for anonymity at the expense of blockchain bloat. The ring size refers to the amount of signatures within the ring. From wikipedia: In cryptography, a ring signature is a type of digital signature that can be performed by any member of a group of users that each have keys. Therefore, a message signed with a ring signature is endorsed by someone in a particular group of people. One of the security properties of a ring signature is that it should be computationally infeasible to determine which of the group members' keys was used to produce the signature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signatureSo maybe this clarifies it a bit. I think you are blending your transaction signature in with others in the ring. So I believe an onlooker won't be able to tell which member of the ring made the signature. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
