 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
at least one thing is obvious, you don't have zero knowledge implemented.
|
|
|
|
How can anyone be sure that there are no "phantom tokens"? Who is going to control the creation of these tokens? Is it all based on trust, are you serious? wtf
EDIT: zero knowledge proofs require a trusted setup. This allows the person who set up the system to create tokens at will if they didn't destroy the setup parameters.
this is why zero cash can't work.
It's the same problem with zero vert.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdfYou answered my question by citing Fujisaki.  The Fujisaki paper is basis for traceability in cryptonote ring signatures. The shadow token paper clearly describes a trusted ("special") setup to create an oracle as two hash functions. It is a deal breaker for true anonymity because it requires you to trust the person who set it up.  This is the exact same problem with all "zero coins". They require a trusted setup. Section 3.1.1 of the Shadow whitepaper debunks your claim. You don't have zero knowledge implemented yet. What do you have then? You have a ring signature token system that uses the same signature system as cryptonote. It's true that it is a new implementation. However, there is this cumbersome condition: "The ring signature consists of the public key of the token being spent, plus the public keys from 3 to 200 other tokens of the same value as the token being spent." So to spend a given amount of shadow coin as shadow token, you have to find in the blockchain 3 - 200 tokens of the same size that you want to spend. I can think of a way to tokenize shadow where you can spend in any denomination: 1. Send shadowcoin to an exchange 2. Trade it for XMR or BBR (latter is better) 3. Spend the BBR in any denomination In this method, you use the exact same ring signature technology without worrying about whether tokens are available in the denomination you want to spend. You also don't have to worry about not getting your change back. It's a step backwards. At best it's interesting, but practically, it's worse. The zero-knowledge aspect is not implemented and will take a trusted setup. The "trustless" aspect you refer to is the ring signature system that operates just like cryptonote. grrrrrrrrr ooga uga booga grrr uga grrr gruunnmm booga uga ooga graw Why there is no reference to Cryptonote on whitepaper? Zero Knowledge + ring signatures is nothing more than Cryptonote. Shadowcash is just cloning Monero without giving its credits and lying that is creating something new and revolutionary. And everyone here know it. From cryptonote white paper: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdfYou can't read the reference at the end of the WP ?  Cryptonote uses a different curve, different libraries, and a whole different underlying core. We used ring signatures to spend Shadow, which is created by sending SDC as an anonymous output. Our scheme is quite a bit different, in that we borrow concepts from zerocoin, with the minting and spending, and use ring signatures to make the inputs untraceable from the outputs.. We're also using PoS instead of PoW. Its a completely unique scheme and implementation  Not to mention, Shadow's anonymity is much more lightweight and flexible than XMR / cryptonote solutions. And SDC is not restricted to any type of signatures... SDC can swap it out with any better zero knowledge systems should they ever come along, and SDC will always be able to improve on it.
Bugger off, troll. Ad Hominem? Really about the references to cryptonote I don't saw before, my brain was busy analyzing the whitepaper. I'm sorry. For the rest, all I said is pure reality. What you quoted above isn't what is in the white paper and with closed code, no one can do a deeper analysis or make sure it really will not being created "phantom tokens" or several other things. This was the first and last time I wasted my time writing something for you or anyone else who don't knows how to talk as a civilized person. |
|
|
|
Monero may need to be worried about SDC since they implemented ring signatures on the more popular Satoshi crypto branch.
No worry. ShadowCash forks BlackCoin whose technology is not as good as Monero's. There is no such thing like ring signatures in SDC ShadowCash is backed by CryptoAsian which is a well-known pump and dump trader/scammer Using "technology is not as good as" seems too broad to be meaningful. Care to elaborate? You may want to check again, because I'm pretty sure SDC just released a version utilizing ring signatures. See this reddit thread There's little substance in the code, the verifyRingSignature() method is trivially simple and isn't called anywhere else in that commit. Their proposed function, generateRingSignature(), doesn't exist and thus it's impossible to determine whether they've actually done anything of substance. The whitepaper is purposely vague in many of the important parts, and a review in conjunction with code is impossible, so we have to take it on the face of it...which is that NIZK + ring signatures + security + low space utilisation = impossible right now.
The bold part of your message is false. SDC supporters are claiming that this was in response to the first push, there is now more code available. |
|
|
|
How can anyone be sure that there are no "phantom tokens"? Who is going to control the creation of these tokens? Is it all based on trust, are you serious? wtf
EDIT: zero knowledge proofs require a trusted setup. This allows the person who set up the system to create tokens at will if they didn't destroy the setup parameters.
this is why zero cash can't work.
It's the same problem with zero vert.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdfYou answered my question by citing Fujisaki. The Fujisaki paper is basis for traceability in cryptonote ring signatures. The shadow token paper clearly describes a trusted ("special") setup to create an oracle as two hash functions. It is a deal breaker for true anonymity because it requires you to trust the person who set it up. This is the exact same problem with all "zero coins". They require a trusted setup. Section 3.1.1 of the Shadow whitepaper debunks your claim. You don't have zero knowledge implemented yet. What do you have then? You have a ring signature token system that uses the same signature system as cryptonote. It's true that it is a new implementation. However, there is this cumbersome condition: "The ring signature consists of the public key of the token being spent, plus the public keys from 3 to 200 other tokens of the same value as the token being spent." So to spend a given amount of shadow coin as shadow token, you have to find in the blockchain 3 - 200 tokens of the same size that you want to spend. I can think of a way to tokenize shadow where you can spend in any denomination: 1. Send shadowcoin to an exchange 2. Trade it for XMR or BBR (latter is better) 3. Spend the BBR in any denomination In this method, you use the exact same ring signature technology without worrying about whether tokens are available in the denomination you want to spend. You also don't have to worry about not getting your change back. It's a step backwards. At best it's interesting, but practically, it's worse. The zero-knowledge aspect is not implemented and will take a trusted setup. The "trustless" aspect you refer to is the ring signature system that operates just like cryptonote. |
|
|
|
Tell us from which community you are, it will be more clear for us to understand you
I'm a boolberry investor and I have followed the crypto_zoidberg's work in development of his new currency CN + POS. What is the problem with this? But today I met fudcoin, so I created this profile and I met shadowcash by that thread lol |
|
|
|
EDIT: zero knowledge proofs require a trusted setup. This allows the person who set up the system to create tokens at will if they didn't destroy the setup parameters.
this is why zero cash can't work.
It's the same problem with zero vert.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdfYou answered my question by citing Fujisaki. The Fujisaki paper is basis for traceability in cryptonote ring signatures. The shadow token paper clearly describes a trusted ("special") setup to create an oracle as two hash functions. It is a deal breaker for true anonymity because it requires you to trust the person who set it up. This is the exact same problem with all "zero coins". They require a trusted setup. |
|
|
|
|
Devs, any news about zk-sharks white paper release?
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone be sure that there are no "phantom tokens"? Who is going to control the creation of these tokens? Is it all based on trust, are you serious? wtf
EDIT: zero knowledge proofs require a trusted setup. This allows the person who set up the system to create tokens at will if they didn't destroy the setup parameters.
this is why zero cash can't work.
It's the same problem with zero vert.
|
|
|
|
Why there is no reference to Cryptonote on whitepaper? Zero Knowledge + ring signatures is nothing more than Cryptonote. Shadowcash is just cloning Monero without giving its credits and lying that is creating something new and revolutionary. And everyone here know it. From cryptonote white paper:https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdfYou can't read the reference at the end of the WP ? Cryptonote uses a different curve, different libraries, and a whole different underlying core. We used ring signatures to spend Shadow, which is created by sending SDC as an anonymous output. Our scheme is quite a bit different, in that we borrow concepts from zerocoin, with the minting and spending, and use ring signatures to make the inputs untraceable from the outputs.. We're also using PoS instead of PoW. Its a completely unique scheme and implementation Thanks for reply. But ring signatures + pos, doesn't that boolberry dev is developing with open source and offering bounties for those who find security holes, as you can see in this link? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887482.msg9821753#msg9821753Ring Signatures + pos not makes the coin extremely vulnerable to threats?" LOL this guy even sucks at fudding
Why? I just have some technical questions to ask |
|
|
|
Why there is no reference to Cryptonote on whitepaper? Zero Knowledge + ring signatures is nothing more than Cryptonote. Shadowcash is just cloning Monero without giving its credits and lying that is creating something new and revolutionary. And everyone here know it. From cryptonote white paper:https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdfYou can't read the reference at the end of the WP ? Cryptonote uses a different curve, different libraries, and a whole different underlying core. We used ring signatures to spend Shadow, which is created by sending SDC as an anonymous output. Our scheme is quite a bit different, in that we borrow concepts from zerocoin, with the minting and spending, and use ring signatures to make the inputs untraceable from the outputs.. We're also using PoS instead of PoW. Its a completely unique scheme and implementation Thanks for reply. But ring signatures + pos, doesn't that boolberry dev is developing with open source and offering bounties for those who find security holes, as you can see in this link? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887482.msg9821753#msg9821753Ring Signatures + pos not makes the coin extremely vulnerable to threats?" |
|
|
|
Why there is no reference to Cryptonote on whitepaper? Zero Knowledge + ring signatures is nothing more than Cryptonote. Shadowcash is just cloning Monero without giving its credits and lying that is creating something new and revolutionary. And everyone here know it. From cryptonote white paper:https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf |
|
|
|
|
