I have 14 active connections on my SDC wallet and 8 active connections on my testnet wallet for zk testing.
ZK Testnet  There is a way to be part of that? EDIT: I have 20 connections on my SDC wallet. Na, you'll need to queue like us and wait for the public test. I cant wait...this is HUGE! |
|
|
|
|
I'm so glad the SDC team had the foresight to stay out of that XC "blocknet" scam. Its looking like a major loss for everyone involved other that the XC dev team.
|
|
|
|
^^ Can anybody confirm the "maths being solved" part?
Do u know the answer to the "other question"? Im prepared to go on IRC to get an answer. But Im just curious if you know the answer yourself?
Yes the research was done months ago which took months in itself. The math has been finished and is being translated to code and thats is what is happening right now. Signing and verification is done... Whats left is to verify that all coin public keys exist, and some UI changes. Thats not to say another 100 things wont pop up and need refining! There is no hard date!! They're working as hard as they can on it. It excites them, they are extremely run off their feet but there will be a complete writeup on it all, one day soon. If all goes well! But please just remember it takes time, they're not robots! Please allow them time to show you all you need to know just allow the time. This project has already proven itself it does not ask for your trust it demands it but it does need your patience  Agree. I couldn't care less of hard deadlines, and everything that comes with the altcoin quick money making business practiced by most of the others crypto currencies which aren't there to last, but to be profitable to dump on some suckers.. Shadow is a real project with passionated devs, who are buying themselves their own coins (no premine, no ipo). They are doing it to protect what they like, internet and freedom. Shadow has nothing to prove...look at the last four months. No project has innovated to the extent SDC has in such a short time. SDC is the opposite of vaporware, the devs refrain from promises and just deliver. The "roadmap" is not from the devs...the community put the roadmap together based on the estimations of the development progress. |
|
|
|
This is the publicity SDC deserves! |
|
|
|
This coin seems to be on the cutting edge with its features.
Yes it is. The market hasn't noticed yet or does not know what they are looking at. If you check git, you will see that this is probably the most capable dev in any alt. In the couple months of existence, shadow has released the following groundbreaking innovations: Encrypted p2p Messaging
Stealth Addresses - Dual Key
Staking Mobile Wallets
PoS Lightweight Client with SPV
HTML5 Client with awesome messaging interface
Now Ryno is working on zero knowledge transactions which will be the end all anon solution. Stick around and watch the show... |
|
|
|
ShadowLite
Today we are releasing our brand new lite wallet (ShadowLite) functionality for desktop systems. This is a big update to the backend portion of the wallet and although this update is not mandatory, we do recommend that anyone running a 'full node' update to support the lite nodes that will be added to the network.
We've taken a completely different approach to wallet design based on the principles of the "Simplified Payment Verification" or “SPV” system outlined in section 8 of Satoshi’s Whitepaper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). Instead of releasing a separate client, we’ve integrated optional lite functionality within the wallet. This allows for startup configuration to determine which mode you are running (thin or full).
The lite wallet functionality brings with it new options for wallet storage. For example, setting up a staking node on an isolated device such as a Raspberry Pi allows for better security, while still supporting the Shadow network.
ShadowLite mobile users have access to all existing functionality (including staking) with a reduced bandwidth, storage and memory footprint.
Instructions
Full mode: The new wallet is set to ‘full mode’ by default and as a result it requires no setup.
Lite mode: Enabling staking on thin mode uses a bit more data and storage, as it needs to verify transactions with full nodes. In addition, fetching information about previous blocks and the current state of the chain.
For those of you who wish to use the lite wallet, just add the following to your configuration file:
Alternatively, you can startup with the -thinmode parameter.
To enable staking in thin mode, run with -thinstake. It is recommended to run -thinstake with -thinfullindex
Running with "-thinfullindex" will keep the entire filtered chain in memory, like full mode which increases memory usage and decreases database reads.
Or add the following to your configuration file:
thinstake=1
thinfullindex=1
Updated Shadow UI/UX
The new UI, which is based on HMTL5 technology, will be released later this week for both desktop and mobile (ShadowGo) with ShadowLite support. We wanted to get the bloom filters (which are required for proper working of the lite wallets) in place for the full nodes.
Stay tuned for more exciting updates this week!
Downloads:"We've taken a completely different approach to wallet design based on the principles of the "Simplified Payment Verification" or “SPV” system outlined in section 8 of Satoshi’s Whitepaper ( https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)." SPV from Satoshi's whitepaper. V  |
|
|
|
WoW...SDC has Lite PoS.  |
|
|
|
|
They did it....holy shit that is a first ever in PoS. ^
|
|
|
|
The primary factor in a financial or private commerce ecosystem is secure communication between parties.
Jamming chat, etc., in a wallet is a poor attempt to conflate different types of information exchange. In a true trustless and anonymous transaction protocol, the information is a shared secret between sender and receiver that allows the receiver to prove a transfer of ownership. You may think to yourself that chat solves this problem. Namely, sender and receiver set up an encrypted channel and exchange the secret. That can work great, but you don't need zk proofs in this situation. zk proofs solve the problem of ever exchanging the secret in the first place. So you don't need chat. I.e. it's cryptographically irrelevant. Chat also has the problem that the sender and receiver need direct communication to exchange the secret. That's horribly limiting: "Hey Ted, we need to exchange some money, when are you available to do that?" At some point, the conversation has to be initiated on the private channel. So sender and recipient have to meet and exchange a secret to meet up on the channel. It defers the problem and so you still haven't solved it. Again. Chat, etc. become irrelevant because of this need to establish the private channel. Also, zk proofs are good to solve the problem of exchanging a secret because it eliminates the need of the exchange. But stealth addresses already do that. So why implement zk proofs to solve a problem already solved by the coin that you cloned from (vertcoin)?Right now, for crypto, zk proofs have been promised for zerocoin (zk=zero knowledge). But zerocoin is being worked on by people (1) smart enough to conceive of it, (2) smart enough to provide a public blue print giving enough information for one to determine where the proof fits, and (3) smart enough to know that even with this blueprint, they are still going to beat anyone who tries to implement their idea. Hence, my conclusion (for which I can find no contradictory evidence) is that the shadowcoin dev borrowed "zk-SNARK" from the zerocoin whitepaper in the hopes that they make a release and he can clone the technology into shadowcoin. I have no doubt that the SDC dev can pull this off. My doubt lies completely in with the zerocoin team in that they have conceived of an idea that is impractical to implement and therefore impossible to clone because it will never exist. A) Vertcoin's stealth addresses are closed source.. Shadow authored ShadowSend's stealth code, it's own dual-key implementation not cloned from any coin. Unlinkable and untraceable are two separate things. Stealth Addresses help with unlinkablity (creation of addresses not linked to their main public key). B) Shadow isn't implementing zerocoin or zerocash, and I would hope that they(ZC devs) would be able to beat anyone trying to implement their idea (ZC). The underlying technology in zerocash is zk-SNARKs, this doesn't mean that Shadows devs are borrowing or cloning any of their code. Also, the current Zerocash blueprint isn't a final representation of their model, it dates back to May and Dec respectfully. zk-SNARKs was not invented by zerocash and has yet to be implemented into a cryptocurrency. Shadow's SNARKs implementation is it's own protocol. I initially thought coming into this project that it was a ZC implementation until Ryno corrected me in IRC and explained the differences in their method. That's when I got excited and started focusing this as my long-term crypto investment. As for the reasoning behind zk-snarks and stealth addresses it is part of the ShadowSend protocol and you would need to speak with Ryno for a more detailed explanation of how they will be tied together. C) "Chat also has the problem that the sender and receiver need direct communication to exchange the secret. That's horribly limiting: "Hey Ted, we need to exchange some money, when are you available to do that?" At some point, the conversation has to be initiated on the private channel. So sender and recipient have to meet and exchange a secret to meet up on the channel. It defers the problem and so you still haven't solved it. Again. Chat, etc. become irrelevant because of this need to establish the private channel." There has to be some medium of negotiations or communication outside of the actual transaction. Otherwise there would just be something like a smart contract binding both parties to the deal without there being a convo before hand or in the case of a crypto exchange where communication is irrelevant between buyer and sell. The underlying concept of the ShadowChat is still the same: two addresses exchanging information. In a perfect world there wouldn't need to be a line of communication between parties, but unfortunately this isn't a perfect world and there is still an element of interaction in business relations i.e. shipping, transaction details, item questions, pseudo-invoicing, graphic design changes, etc. Negotiating a deal in a private room and exchanging information between two anonymous parties (ShadowChat) then using zk/sa to send funds(ShadowSend) leaves no trace of the transaction to outside parties, except the two involved. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "irrelevant" because without a secure line of communication you rely solely on traditional means of communication: e-mail, chat, phone, forum posts. This is the exact same concept that is applied on Craigslist, arguably the biggest grey (new and used items) and black market (stolen items, drugs, prostitution through code words which is a form of cryptography) on the net (also monitored the most), but in a more primitive manner. I have product A listed, you want to buy "A" from me. I list a method of contact: phone, e-mail, text. You use one of those lines of the communication to arrange the deal: time, price, date and location. The actual transaction is done with cash leaving no trace of the deal outside of the initial lines of communication or if the deal was under surveillance by the 3rd party. In this sense you can look at ShadowChat is a method to replace those contact methods further reducing a potential man-in-the-middle attack. Leaving the actual transaction traceless (ShadowSend). ShadowChat = Negotiations, Planning, Communication ShadowSend = Exchange D) As far as "borrowing" the idea from ZC, almost all technology is borrowed from an originating source and credited. ZC (Ian Miers, Christina Garman, Matthew Green, Aviel D. Rubin) borrowed SNARKs from the original authors of the concept ( http://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2011/CRYPTO/video/rump/1d53ee327ee49f4afdbac8ed3b013657.pdf). Shadow looked at ZC's proposal and thought of a better proposal completely different from ZC. It wouldn't be the first time that technology has been improved on by an outside source. Feel free to hop on IRC devs are online pretty much 24/7 #shadowcoin - check github before u start trolling. SDC stealth >>> https://github.com/SDCDev/shadowcoin/blob/master/src/stealth.cppHighlights from coolstoryteller:As far as "borrowing" the idea from ZC, almost all technology is borrowed from an originating source and credited. ZC (Ian Miers, Christina Garman, Matthew Green, Aviel D. Rubin) borrowed SNARKs from the original authors of the concept ( http://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2011/CRYPTO/video/rump/1d53ee327ee49f4afdbac8ed3b013657.pdf). Shadow looked at ZC's proposal and thought of a better proposal completely different from ZC. There has to be some medium of negotiations or communication outside of the actual transaction. Otherwise there would just be something like a smart contract binding both parties to the deal without there being a convo before hand... |
|
|
|
Hi
has anyone reviewed the code? Is it really anon?
Does the shadowchat work?
thanks
I'm not sure if the code has been audited yet, maybe someone else could chip in regarding this. And yes ShadowChat does work. Thanks for your reply. Isnt there someone here on btc talk who is respected that can check out the code ? The stealth code was sent to Peter Todd as stealth was his vision and SDC is the first open source stealth code using openssl. I dont know if Todd has commented. |
|
|
|
Decent coin, I wish I had been ballsy enough to buy, good for you guys  I dont want to sound like Im trying to make you buy...but in my honest opinion its very undervalued atm. Yes the Dev is working on a trust less version of zk-snarks and since our Dev is pumping out working features so quickly(coin is only a month old) there is a good chance he will be the first to implement it,plus the version the others are working has to be trusted from what i have gathered, so expect a huge price spike like DRK level at there peak if he pulls it off and it's looking good, way undervalued. +1 Could you explain to me what zk-snakrs is ? Zk-snarks is "zero knowledge" transactions. A system similar to zerocash only combined with already working stealth addresses it will be true trustless anon and private addresses. |
|
|
|
I read that link. Again, what are the dishonest posts from rynomster? There are no dishonest posts from rynomster in that link.
You have wrongly said posts from battbot somehow show dishonesty by rynomster. This seems dishonest on your part. Please list the dishonest posts by rynomster, not posts by battbot.
I am saying you are being intellectualy dishonest in the way you constructed the OP. You say rynomster is dishonest, then you list posts made predominantly by battbot and attempt to attribute them to rynomster.
Please specify anything I've said -- for the most part copied -- that isn't true: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524You have constructed the OP in attemp to implicate rynomster using quotes from battbot. This is a guilt by association falacy. You include rynomster in an undesirable list of quotes made by other people in attempt to implicate him. This is by definition, intellectual dishonesty. I am presenting the chronology as it was -- and allow readers to draw their own conclusions, which seem obvious to me and many others -- while you repeat vague accusations about my dishonesty. I leave the record to speak for itself. This is what battbot and rynomster said and did when they said and did it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524You included rynomster in an undesirable list of quotes made by other people in attempt to implicate him. This is by definition, intellectual dishonesty. List the dishonest quotes from rynomster or stop attacking his character. You clearly dont care at all about honesty or you would not play these games. Im sure this will be abundantly clear to anyone reading these posts. It is now clear to me that intellectual honesty is not your goal, you are just attempting to bring down an honest man. This is shameful on your part and I will no longer participate. |
|
|
|
I read that link. Again, what are the dishonest posts from rynomster? There are no dishonest posts from rynomster in that link.
You have wrongly said posts from battbot somehow show dishonesty by rynomster. This seems dishonest on your part. Please list the dishonest posts by rynomster, not posts by battbot.
I am saying you are being intellectualy dishonest in the way you constructed the OP. You say rynomster is dishonest, then you list posts made predominantly by battbot and attempt to attribute them to rynomster.
Please specify anything I've said -- for the most part copied -- that isn't true: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524You have constructed the OP in attempt to implicate rynomster using quotes from battbot. This is called a guilt by association fallacy. You include rynomster in an undesirable list of quotes made by other people in attempt to implicate him. This is by definition, intellectual dishonesty. List the dishonest quotes from rynomster or stop attacking his character. |
|
|
|
Rynomster was not the dev of CinniCoin. Almost all the posts are of "battbot". It seems lkke you are trying to drag Rynomster down with quotes by battbot. Than seems a little dishonest IMO.
Maybe you should actually read the post and learn the truth instead of looking to inoculate rynomster - the truth of what happened and didn't happen is there for anyone to see and come to their own conclusions, which to me are rather obvious. These are both battbot and rynomster in their own words. I am reading. What posts of Rynomster are showing him dishonest? Are you saying battbot and rynomster are the same person? If not, rynomster can not be incremented by these postings from battbot. I can't force anyone to see the obvious - the quotes from battbot and rynomster are all there, complete with the chronology, for people to see the truth for themselves, if they choose to see it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524What are the dishonest posts from rynomster? You have shown posts from battbot and wrongly attributed them to rynomster...that seems dishonest on your part IMO. You keep calling me dishonest and pretend you can't read all the comments from rynomster here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524I read that link. Again, what are the dishonest posts from rynomster? There are no dishonest posts from rynomster in that link. You have wrongly said posts from battbot somehow show dishonesty by rynomster. This seems dishonest on your part. Please list the dishonest posts by rynomster, not posts by battbot. I am saying you are being intellectualy dishonest in the way you constructed the OP. You say rynomster is dishonest, then you list posts made predominantly by battbot and attempt to attribute them to rynomster. |
|
|
|
Rynomster was not the dev of CinniCoin. Almost all the posts are of "battbot". It seems lkke you are trying to drag Rynomster down with quotes by battbot. Than seems a little dishonest IMO.
Maybe you should actually read the post and learn the truth instead of looking to inoculate rynomster - the truth of what happened and didn't happen is there for anyone to see and come to their own conclusions, which to me are rather obvious. These are both battbot and rynomster in their own words. I am reading. What posts of Rynomster are showing him dishonest? Are you saying battbot and rynomster are the same person? If not, rynomster can not be incremented by these postings from battbot. I can't force anyone to see the obvious - the quotes from battbot and rynomster are all there, complete with the chronology, for people to see the truth for themselves, if they choose to see it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755834.msg8523524#msg8523524What are the dishonest posts from rynomster? You have shown posts from battbot and wrongly attributed them to rynomster...that seems dishonest on your part IMO. |
|
|
|
Rynomster was not the dev of CinniCoin. Almost all the posts are of "battbot". It seems lkke you are trying to drag Rynomster down with quotes by battbot. Than seems a little dishonest IMO.
Maybe you should actually read the post and learn the truth instead of looking to inoculate rynomster - the truth of what happened and didn't happen is there for anyone to see and come to their own conclusions, which to me are rather obvious. These are both battbot and rynomster in their own words. I am reading. What posts of Rynomster are showing him dishonest? Are you saying battbot and rynomster are the same person? If not, rynomster can not be incremented by these postings from battbot. |
|
|
|
|
Rynomster was not the dev of CinniCoin. Almost all the quoted posts are from "battbot". It seems lkke you are trying to drag Rynomster down with quotes by battbot. That seems a little dishonest IMO.
|
|
|
|
Tutorial for ios wallet on Shadowcoin by TheNightMan Thank you! |
|
|
|
Android and iOS full feature mobile wallets...Released.These wallets stake, have encrypted messaging and stealth addresses.
|
|
|
|
Warning: This is a known scammer dev...watch out. The nightmare dev removed the SDC copyrights for SDC stealth code (what this guy calls "nightsend") and claimed he wrote the code. He only replaced SDC copyright after 100's of posts from people warning of illegal use. The TalkCoin dev was on this forum saying that the nightmare guy stole the code for the wallet from TalkCoin. Since the "dev" deletes all posts on the matter....here is an explanation of the recent history. Proof listed below.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741234.msg8384485#msg8384485
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
