Yeah, that makes sense and I can understand why people would be more cautious about investing in cryptocurrencies now. Still this isn't Cloakcoin, Shadow's already delivered the technology with the ShadowSend v2 release. That's the bit that puzzles me.

That happened a lot in the past. Every time a new anon coin boasting to be the next big thing came along people would hedge on it just in case, and every time they lost their money. Every time. That might explain some of the reluctance.

Where in my post have I suggested that? What I would say is that given that most altcoins are speculative investments I'd expect some people to move some of their holdings in response to projects showing exceptional innovation... or at least to hedge their bets to an extent. That just seems like the rational thing to do. Instead, a lot of people cling to coins that use technologies that have been superseded (not looking at anyone in particular  ) and instead of rationality exhibit a strange kind of tribalism. Which you've pretty much done by coming here, making some unjustified inference from my post and beating your chest a bit.

Shadow isn't "as good or even slightly better" than some old coins. It's light years ahead of most, and technologically on a par/ahead of many projects with market caps that dwarf ours. But you do have a point in a way though - I think it is partly about loyalty. If Shadow had appeared just 3/4 months before it did maybe its market cap would match that of those other coins. Instead by then many people had already pledged allegiance to their project of choice and remain loyal in spite of the innovations that occur outside it.

I have larger percentage of the float of SDC than I have DRK, so please pump it up already so I can get second round of profit from it.

Do you expect that every time a new coin comes along that is as good or even slightly better on some aspects than the old coins everyone should dump their holdings and buy the new one? That would make one interesting financial ecosystem.

...what that analogy is missing is that as long as Bitcoin remains the dominant 'force', the whole world is driving on city roads.

Planes are not an option. We don't have a 'clean sheet' where we can design our ideal technology from top to bottom any more than we have the option of designing the 'perfect html markup protocol' from scratch.

(Well you can but nobody's goin to use it).

the official launch of what?

see http://shadow.cash
and check out this vid about Shadow and shadowsend http://youtu.be/CWEzGs2YJtM

+ we're waiting on a peer review of shadowsend atm

we feel our tech supersedes anything XMR or DRK have to offer (well at least I do!)

shadowsend v2 is running live atm
see http://shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcash-anon.pdf

The nodes will be decentralized, but to begin
with they will be maintained by the Navajo
Coin Foundation. We are working to find a
secure way that we could distribute the code
for users to setup their own nodes, while still
being able to guarantee the integrity of the
Anonymous Network

We should collect all those "broken cases" and fixes for them, e.g. on our new lovely Wiki, for others if they encounter similar issues.

Again I'm going to explain it to you. It is up to you if you wish to learn or continue to spam the drivel.

The NIZKP in the SDC whitepaper has nothing to do with "minting" and is just a regular part of the construction used to create cryptonote signitures. Yes this is described in sections 3 and 4 (mostly 4) of the SDC white paper, just as it is likewise described in section 4.4 of the cryptonote white paper. The more puzzling question is why the SDC white paper never cites the cryptonote white paper in the section where it uses the same cryptographic constructions, instead of merely listing a non-specific reference to cryptonote at the end. A careless oversight perhaps. You will have to ask the author, though.

No one is being a jerk here, I'm responding to inaccuracies in your spam, that is all.

No, that is not only not "established", it is not even true. The only thing that is "taken" from zerocoin is the vague concept of converting between btc and another coin type. How it is done and what the other coin type is and how it works, including the minting process itself, is totally different.

Just look in the SDC whitepaper man, there is no footnote that cites zerocoin with reference to any of the cryptography whatsoever, only with the general concept of converting from btc to another token. That is the only connection. If you think that by itself is a big deal then sure go ahead and keep bringing it up like the other SDC pumpers do. You (and they) probably will regardless.

Intuition behind our construction. To understand the intuition behind Zerocoin, consider the following “pencil and paper” protocol example. Imagine that all users share access to a physical bulletin board. To mint a zerocoin of fixed denomination $1, a user Alice first generates a random coin serial number S , then commits to S using a secure digital commitment scheme. The resulting commitment is a coin, denoted C , which can only be opened by a random number r to reveal the serial number S. Alice pins C to the public bulletin board, along with $1 of physical currency. All users will accept C provided it is correctly structured and carries the correct sum of currency.

To redeem her coin C, Alice first scans the bulletin board to obtain the set of valid commitments (C₁ ;:::;C_N) that have thus far been posted by all users in the system. She next produces a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof # for the following two statements: (1) she knows a C2 (C₁;:::;C_N) and (2) she knows a hidden value r such that the commitment C opens to S. In full view of the others, Alice, using a disguise to hide her identity, 1 posts a “spend” transaction containing (S;#). The remaining users verify the proof # and check that S has not previously appeared in any other spend transaction. If these conditions are met, the users allow Alice to collect $1 from any location on the bulletin board; otherwise they reject her transaction and prevent her from collecting the currency.

 This simple protocol achieves some important aims. First, Alice’s minted coin cannot be linked to her retrieved funds:in order to link the coin C to the the serial number S used in her withdrawal, one must either know r or directly know which coin Alice proved knowledge of, neither of which are revealed by the proof. Thus, even if the original dollar bill is recognizably tainted (e.g., it was used in a controversial transaction), it cannot be linked to Alice’s new dollar bill. At the same time, if the commitment and zero-knowledge proof are secure, then Alice cannot double-spend any coin without re-using the serial number S and thus being detected by the network participants

Now, now, you are the one making false accusations here. I never said they lied. It is true that the original zerocash paper was presented as an "add on" to the bitcoin blockchain that include a conversion/minting process (of course that idea was resoundingly rejected by the bitcoin community). If SDC is going to also propose an add-on to a bitcoin-style blockchain then there is going to be a conversion process and it is reasonable to cite zerocoin. However, in both cases, zerocoin and cryptonote-with-conversions, the fact that there is conversion has nothing to do with the underlying cryptography, it is just a means of integration.

It is confusing this last point where pumpers in the SDC community who constantly make claims about "zero knowledge" and how it is "like zerocoin because it has minting" are being either ignorant or willfully ignorant. I have no idea if those pumpers are sanctioned by the project.

Maybe for the same reason people keep parroting comments about "zero knowledge" and how it isn't really like cryptonote, and how many coins make silly claims. Because it is perceived to be good for pumping, though that game seems to be up.

Can we get back on topic of discussing XMR and DRK, or are you going to continue spamming SDC here?

I have read the paper yes.


No, and no this has nothing to do with zerocoin.

But there is no rational reason to do so


It isn't FUD that the distribution is terrible, at least you don't think so since you acknowledge it. Nor is it FUD that false or misleading claims like "zero knowledge" and "not a clone of cryptonote" and "uses ideas from zerocoin" are thrown around a lot by a small number of SDC pumpers. See you did it below again...

I'm not being rude, I'm being frank. Enough double talk.


The method Shadow uses to prevent double spends is from cryptonote. LNK phase.

The price of SDC is unlikely to go up other than a few insiders who own essentially all the coins (which you acknowledge) trading the coins between each other at higher prices to create an illusion of interest. There is no substance there, it is just a warmed over immature reimplementation of cryptonote run by a few pumpers, and if people want cryptonote, they know where to go. All this "zerocoin," "minting" and "zero knowledge" obfuscation you guys throw around is nonsense, and everyone knows it now.

Please stop spamming threads discussing DRK and XMR, two coins that more than a few people even care about.

BTW, it is absolutely true that if you have a high percentage (say 99%) of traceable transactions, you have a high degree of traceability of the chain as a whole. You can review the math for this in MRL-0001 and MRL-0004, but you won't because you don't care about math or substance, just pumping.

You missed an important one: http://pastebin.com/S7aKCDgy

Well i agree with you that the Bitcoin codebase and APIs, etc. are an advantage in terms of integration, etc. I don't agree that the minting/destruction add value to anonymity, and in fact I think the opposite as I explained above. But overall yes the more popular APIs and such are valuable.

I don't think the communities are or need to be unfriendly but there is some confusion that has been spread about the nature of the Shadow solution that has led to some frustration on both sides. We certainly share the goal of greater privacy.

Yes, mymonero has a restricted range of mix factors for ease of use as the UI is intended largely for less-technical users. I expect as it matures it will have an "advanced" mode or some kind.

Using the native wallet you can use any factor you want, even >100.


I'm told Polo is using mix 3 now? I haven't confirmed that myself though. BTW mix=0 isn't "no-anonymity" though, as stealth-addresses are always used. I would call it weak anonymity for sure.

If only 1% of transactions are used for anonymity you will have massive timing anonymity leaks and such. If you take transparent coins, convert to anon, pay someone, and he converts back (both of which are logical if most commerce is taking place non-anonymously) then the whole thing is quite obviously traceable.

I don't really see much advantage to a coin that is 99% transparent, and definitely see disadvantages. Just use Bitcoin, or if you really want PoS, use whatever is the leading PoS coin, probably BitShares I guess. BitShares has stealth addresses by the way.


It does not. The creation and destruction process is entirely transparent.