Did I forget to mention I am not interested in scams?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=818939.0

Also, I was interested in zerocoin, not zerocash which needs a trusted setup of the initial parameters - if I understand things correctly - I would certainly trust zerocash more (even if NSA evesdrop) than some shadowcash people who could generate infinite amount of coins.

Still no apology or an actual steps to remedy this situation like showing some work being done? And by work I mean code, not a list of things anybody can pull out of their ass. A trusted person from the the larger bitcointalk community would be sufficient to take a look and give a brief summary.

Btw, its quite funny how they point to donations that have not been touched meanwhile big bucks where behind the recent p&d enabling them to take huge profits.

If anybody knows a team of devs working on a zerocoin implementation (not zerocash) let me know, I would very much much like to support them. I am really not interested in sociopaths, scammers or young boys learning to program. It is obvious Gnosis knows shit about programming and even when he finally implements ZC, the code would be shit and it will get hacked in no time.

Common Smurf... now you really talk bad about Blocknet after that big discussion in Shadows IRC? That was not that easy that answer to not participate for ShadowCash and it was really not that BLACK and White. There are Pro's and Con's of Blocknet and ShadowCash can succeed without it but it could had also be beneficial for ShadowCash.

IPO is not that bad deal because without money you don't have ressources for IT and Marketing / PR.

Disclaimer: I am invested in Shadowcash for quite a time now..

You must be new here. See: Ethereum. They literally have in their terms that the software itself may never even come to fruition, and that's part of the risk of participating in their IPO. And yet it was wildly successful.


I agree completely, but this is crypto, man. I highly doubt they'll make the 2500 from crowdfunding. What is more likely, is they have a couple people with significant bankrolls who can afford to buy out a significant share of the IPO. It's basically another way to hide a premine, they pay themselves some BTC for a significant portion of their own shares. Zero risk for them, big hype about zomg super successful IPO, etc.

The logic behind this multi-coin association is completely flawed without a technological proof-of-concept, as you said - until then it's just another token used to benefit the insiders while diminishing value of its constituent partners (the other coins). They talk a good talk, and they *will* have a successful IPO sale - the question is can you believe any of it, and the answer, as we've seen time and again in crypto - is no. Investing in the IPO is not an investment in this product, rather it's a bet that the insiders of this conglomerate have the competency and intent to use their large bankrolls and obfuscated token marketshare to pump the price up to the x4 goal they claim will be inherently  built into the design of this network. If they're savvy whales, that'd be pretty easy to do. Then they'll use that to sucker a new phase of buyers expecting the next rise, and so begins the tears for the not-so-savvy participants.

So, my point is - we won't get proof-of-concept or a demo. They don't need to give it. If they're not idiots they've *definitely* got the resources between these coin teams to self-buy and pump their own fresh IPO. Just like every other one, it's gonna be a big cash in for the insiders, a solid profit for intelligent traders, and a long line of bagholders wondering when the next update is.

Disclosure - I am an XC supporter.

I think it was a hasty decision to pull out of the BlockNet, it seems the decision was made over a small handful of investors that complained about it but the opportunity to gain MANY more supporters and massive exposure for Shadow I would think FAR out weighs a few current investors backing out.

I honestly do not know too much about ShadowCoin so I speak with a quiet voice here, but it does appear to be a really good project with a great community.  Would make a great inclusion in the BlockNet and I would think BlockNet would be a phenomenal move for Shadow!

For those that may be interested, there is a Blocknet update. The decision to join blocknet might of been rushed but the decision to leave it was probably just a rushed.  Both sides of the coin threatened to take their ball and go home if they didn't get their way.  I think that was a bit much.  There should of been more discussion.  If the tech works better than some of you think, hopefully we could re-look at getting involved.  If not, that's fine too I guess.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576


--- Edit ---

I would like to add that several called this a 'money grab' by XC.  I don't agree with that generalization but what would you call Supernet?  Supernet required 10% of any coin's supply to be added to the network and centrally controlled.  Blocknet doesn't not require this.  Coins join for free.  Value in blocknet comes from the initial ITO and is increased by the participating coins market cap.

Thanks. I will come on irc when I have time. Good luck for you guys with your coin.

You just forget to mention that ShadowCash is 6 Millions coins mined in two weeks.

This.
I totally agree.
I've finally come to the conclusion - this whole scene - including BTC - is a scam.
play or be played.
sorry brother.

Is there enough good code here that other developers would pick up this project? Is there anyone out there who thinks ZC can be implemented?

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.

For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.

The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.

Onward.

Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>

9 March 1993

14.000 Sathoschi? What's happening to Shadowcash?going down in the Market cap.

Bitcoin does not have good distribution

Hopefully nobody in the SDC community lost any coins there

That is pretty damning of coolstoryteller. How can he lie and say he was never part of bobsgroup when in this he is cleary says his role in it and how he became part of it. Invited. He claims he didnt work on the play at that time. I find that hard to believe. You have info a coin will be pumped but you buy none of it? Bullshit.

Looks like coolstoryteller being part of bobsurplus' group to me. In the red portion he desribes his role in the group and what he did and didn't do. Turning a blind eye to your own guys faults is 100x worse than the faults you find in others. Complacency is real shitty especially to investors. It's a fact trollsroyce aka coolstoryteller was in bobsgroup. This guy who calls out bob for doing exactly what he does with SDC. Disgusting fucking hypocrite.