Does anybody know when Isidor Zeuner finishes analyzing ShadowSend tech?
I don't think anybody knows for sure. But I heard rynomster said recently he was supposed to speak with Isidor the other day for some questions and stuff. So it seems progress is being made. 19-02-2015 17:21 SDCDev:I'm waiting for a reply from Isidor  on the other side of things we're busy introducing a new dev to our HTML platform, and testing our SDK for apps :> Also this: http://shadowtalk.org/topic/321/shadowcash-whitepaper-peer-review/10 |
|
|
|
Does anybody know when Isidor Zeuner finishes analyzing ShadowSend tech?
I don't think anybody knows for sure. But I heard rynomster said recently he was supposed to speak with Isidor the other day for some questions and stuff. So it seems progress is being made. |
|
|
|
Cryptsy wallet had been having some issues last few days. So I contacted mullick from Cryptsy, he said the following: Ya after the last update from the devs where they said they fixed the locking issue i stopped my script that would restart it every 10 minutes. Im guessing bittrex is doing the same. I started the script again. The locking issue hasnt been fixed yet
I guess the locking, or freezing issue is still a problem. It seems to occur after the wallet has been opened for a while. So seems like this is a temporary fix. Just thought this is good to know for anyone trying to deposit or withdraw there. I still recommend Bittrex for now. From experience they have had the least amount of issues/downtime with their wallet. Edit: I should specify that the devs did fix some of the locking issues, and the update is now available on github, but there are still some other locking issues left that they are tackling, from what I understand. |
|
|
|
|
Cryptsy wallet back in maintenance again. I PMed mullick, but have not heard back. I wonder how bittrex solved the problem of the wallet hanging, because their wallet seems to work flawlessly every day. Also they have the most volume for SDC. So anybody new that wants to trade, I highly suggest Bittrex.
|
|
|
|
1) really sorry for no comms last few days, I understand the frustration. Sometimes life happens at the worst times and you come back to a shitstorm. 2) ST6 is primarily focused on getting SwC back 3) balances are available for withdraw. big ups to hdev for handling them. 4) bitcoins are safe, and I reiterate that they are available for withdraw if you'd like them. Big ups to all of ST6 for this, with the MVP going to hdev 5) No clue how long we will be down, it's in ST6's hands and it looks like it may be a bit. I'm not going to say anything further until I spend a bunch of hours understanding the exact nature of the issue.6) tyvm for playing SwC, and I understand how frustrating it must be not to have it right now. As many of the beta testers can verify (please, speak up now, I understand I swore you all to secrecy but it's totally cool now) we are very close to dropping absolutely super-nasty bitcoin poker 2.0 software. We have been playing live games for small stakes for a few weeks now, and I can promise the bitcoin poker world we are going to drop this all over your faces very soon. During this unplanned, extended downtime please thing about our history, and how we have consistently delivered since 2011. Bear with us, I wanna dealer's choice too The bolded part is what concerns me. Seems Micon is not telling the whole story, and holding information back. |
|
|
|
I had an idea for SBay obviously because it's decentralized no one has any control of what is put on it, but maybe it could have like in bct.org an ignore button on vendors and items and if that item or vendor was ignored enough say like 1000 wallets then the item or vendors listing would be automatically removed by the system, that way if someone was trying to sell assassinations, or guns, or child abuse material the community could quickly vote to remove it by just clicking the ignore button, is this possible to do?
Censorship = liability child porn on SBay= instant death of SDC..so it's got to be worked out these things can not be allowed on there, so there has to be a way. Without a charitable organization running the administrative side, it will be a free market. Though I hate the idea of CP... if there is censorship implemented but something makes it through, then the censoring administrator would be liable in some way. However, it could work similar to Reddit and Digg where you get upvotes for exposure. CP of course along with racist propaganda would probably be downvoted to crap and would not be as active in the community due to that which might work? yes the reddit idea is sort of what i was trying to suggest everybody who has a wallet has the option of down voting or ignoring a listing and if enough people did it then that item would be automatically deleted by the system, yes it could start wars between vendors but if you made the number of down votes to remove the listing or vendor big like 100 or 1000 down votes it makes it harder for a single user to try and sabotage competitors and also spreads the liability out to the point no one is going to be touched especially for removing shit like that, i know what your saying about the liability, but having cp, or weapons is a bigger liability. There is no solution that can be applied globally, as there is no global law. Being American guns and racist material are perfectly legal, for me, but playing poker online is not. In other countries it is reversed. In Riyadh most of us have done things for which we could be executed. So another problem with having a censored market is deciding what standards will be used for the censorship. Historically these arrangements have tended to favor the most restrictive and brutal. Any attempt to censor the dark market is likely to end up a fool's errand of appeasing the most ruthless bastards on earth, from US tax authorities to Iranian religious authorities. i don't think anyone will look down on SDC for censoring cp weapons or assassins, these three things will ruin SDC..there has to be a way and it's not censoring it's cleaning out the trash, SDC from what i can see has a vision of empowering the masses, cp victimizes and destroys children's lives, guns bought illegally are usually used for violent crimes because they would just buy one legally if that wasn't the case, and assassins are just bad news all three of these things are bad news for SDC and the complete opposite of empowering the masses, the only people who want to see that shit on a anonymous decentralized market are sickos and dangerous thugs. You can't censor a decentralized marketplace. If there is censorship then it is no longer a decentralized marketplace. Censorship requires centralization, which also comes with liability for the centralized entity. I don't think the devs would want to be that entity. I think the devs must be very careful however to stay out of trouble. This marketplace should be designed with the intent of it being used for legal items. There is no criminal intent here. For example, if they created it with pre-made categories of things like Drugs, Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, etc, then that would show criminal intent. I don't think they would ever do that, as Sbay is being designed for a marketplace of legal items and services. Of course there will always be some that abuse the system. With any new tool and technology you must take the good with the bad. I don't think abuse of the system will be that big, however there are sure to be some rare cases. If there are I don't really think it will damage SDC's reputation. There are such things on some Bitcoin dark markets, yet Bitcoin still seems to thrive and persevere. The internet is a tool that is abused by some rare people as well. Yet it is overwhelmingly a positive technology for humanity. I think Sbay can be thought of in a similar respect. how is having a voting system to De-list unethical material centralizing it, sorry it's a legitimate question not being smart, it would still be decentralized but the users would have the option of voting for things they didn't want to see on there, my idea was each item would have a option to down vote, ignore or report etc there would be a certain number of times it would have to be down voted, reported, ignored etc, say between 100-1000 when that number was reached it would be removed automatically by the system, it's not centralizing it it's adding a voting system, so if some sicko tries to sell a bunch of kiddy porn we as a community can decide if we want to see that there, no centralization what so ever, still decentralized but with a community controlled voting system, Im sure maybe this isn't the best option? but it has to be done we can not allow that sort of shit to be pushed on our market, it's an idea, would love to hear others ideas, this is the sort of thing that should be being discussed not price speculation and crap like that, this is the stuff that's important, and the dev team might be able to take one of our ideas that they had not thought of yet and make it work. Well I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a voting system to be cleverly instituted in a decentralized way. However it seems like a very difficult problem to solve. The hurdle I see with it, is if for example take the simple case of having 1000 down votes to remove an item. People could spoof accounts, attack competition. Governments could set up 1000 wallets and downvote anything they don't like. Then that decentralized system turns into a centralized one once again. Now that I think about it, maybe the best way to deal with it, is to just vote using our dollars (or SDCs), and that just means letting the free market work. Things that are socially unacceptable won't get very many buyers. The same is with the darkweb now. I would guess the vast majority of the darkweb economy is drugs and not things like child porn. This is because drugs are more socially acceptable in our society. Also this is seen further as marijuana was by far the most common drug sold on dark marketplaces, and it is also the most socially acceptable illegal drug. Anyways here is a video you may be interested in when the Open Bazaar folks were asked about if drugs would be sold on their marketplace (9 min mark): http://youtu.be/RRp8GevQRY0?t=9m34s |
|
|
|
I had an idea for SBay obviously because it's decentralized no one has any control of what is put on it, but maybe it could have like in bct.org an ignore button on vendors and items and if that item or vendor was ignored enough say like 1000 wallets then the item or vendors listing would be automatically removed by the system, that way if someone was trying to sell assassinations, or guns, or child abuse material the community could quickly vote to remove it by just clicking the ignore button, is this possible to do?
Censorship = liability child porn on SBay= instant death of SDC..so it's got to be worked out these things can not be allowed on there, so there has to be a way. Without a charitable organization running the administrative side, it will be a free market. Though I hate the idea of CP... if there is censorship implemented but something makes it through, then the censoring administrator would be liable in some way. However, it could work similar to Reddit and Digg where you get upvotes for exposure. CP of course along with racist propaganda would probably be downvoted to crap and would not be as active in the community due to that which might work? yes the reddit idea is sort of what i was trying to suggest everybody who has a wallet has the option of down voting or ignoring a listing and if enough people did it then that item would be automatically deleted by the system, yes it could start wars between vendors but if you made the number of down votes to remove the listing or vendor big like 100 or 1000 down votes it makes it harder for a single user to try and sabotage competitors and also spreads the liability out to the point no one is going to be touched especially for removing shit like that, i know what your saying about the liability, but having cp, or weapons is a bigger liability. There is no solution that can be applied globally, as there is no global law. Being American guns and racist material are perfectly legal, for me, but playing poker online is not. In other countries it is reversed. In Riyadh most of us have done things for which we could be executed. So another problem with having a censored market is deciding what standards will be used for the censorship. Historically these arrangements have tended to favor the most restrictive and brutal. Any attempt to censor the dark market is likely to end up a fool's errand of appeasing the most ruthless bastards on earth, from US tax authorities to Iranian religious authorities. i don't think anyone will look down on SDC for censoring cp weapons or assassins, these three things will ruin SDC..there has to be a way and it's not censoring it's cleaning out the trash, SDC from what i can see has a vision of empowering the masses, cp victimizes and destroys children's lives, guns bought illegally are usually used for violent crimes because they would just buy one legally if that wasn't the case, and assassins are just bad news all three of these things are bad news for SDC and the complete opposite of empowering the masses, the only people who want to see that shit on a anonymous decentralized market are sickos and dangerous thugs. You can't censor a decentralized marketplace. If there is censorship then it is no longer a decentralized marketplace. Censorship requires centralization, which also comes with liability for the centralized entity. I don't think the devs would want to be that entity. I think the devs must be very careful however to stay out of trouble. This marketplace should be designed with the intent of it being used for legal items. There is no criminal intent here. For example, if they created it with pre-made categories of things like Drugs, Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, etc, then that would show criminal intent. I don't think they would ever do that, as Sbay is being designed for a marketplace of legal items and services. Of course there will always be some that abuse the system. With any new tool and technology you must take the good with the bad. I don't think abuse of the system will be that big, however there are sure to be some rare cases. If there are I don't really think it will damage SDC's reputation. There are such things on some Bitcoin dark markets, yet Bitcoin still seems to thrive and persevere. The internet is a tool that is abused by some rare people as well. Yet it is overwhelmingly a positive technology for humanity. I think Sbay can be thought of in a similar respect. |
|
|
|
Have some questions. I was wondering what is the difference between ShadowChat and Bitmessage? They seem to have some similarities. Here is ShadowChat white paper: http://www.shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcoin-p2p-em.pdfHere is bitmessage whitepaper: https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdfThe bitmessage whitepaper mentions something about Proof of Work, since Shadow is POS coin how do they compare in this respect? Also the devs say on the Roadmap that they plan to add video, voice, and file support to ShadowChat. Is ShadowChat designed differently than bitmessage in order to be able to accommodate this in the future? Would voice, and video be possible in bitmessage's setup? Also there is another project I heard about called Tox ( https://tox.im/). They aim to be an encrypted peer-to-peer skype replacement. They already have text, voice, video, and file support. Anybody know how this project compares to ShadowChat? Seems similar in some ways, and they even say they may incorporate bitcoin into their software in the future: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/tox-encrypted-skype-replacement-will-possibly-integrate-bitcoin/You can check out their reddit sub here: http://www.reddit.com/r/projecttoxAll three projects seem to have similar goals. Can anyone can give any insight into how these three compare to each other? |
|
|
|
Seems Cryptsy and Poloniex wallets working good now after the recent bug fixes. I saw on IRC, it looks like maybe some new devs are coming into the Shadow Project as well: http://shadowcash.io/index/irc/12-2-2015/12-02-2015 12:28
SDCDev:
it looks like more devs are keen to start working... will find out who is who in the zoo as soon as American peeps wake up :p
Good to hear |
|
|
|
There has been a little bit of a debate about this, which occasionally turns into a troll/flame/FUD fest. People are very defensive about their coins. Personally I feel that SDC has the most promise from things I have seen. However I think we should support all projects that are attempting to increase privacy and anonymity in crypto. Anyways Isidor Zeuner is said to be coming out with a review on ShadowCash in the near future, and I heard he may also be comparing ShadowCash to Monero, DRK, cryptonote, and other anon coins to highlight the similarities and differences. There has been some confusion on this issue. I think that if ShadowCash passes peer review without any critical flaw then it is probably the best anon coin. But I'm sure others who are diehard fans of other anon coins will disagree. Also I should mention that the Shadow Project has other valuable things such as ShadowChat encrypted messaging within the official wallet. Soon they say they will add voice, video, and file support. They are also working on a decentralized marketplace within the official wallet, similar to open bazaar. They also have had many other accomplishments with their wallet and mobile wallets. So, encrypted messaging and basically the opinion of some broke plebian discord result in the amount of $282,482. ring signatures and basically some crazed bible thumpers brought together $1,415,675. while fancy mixing, with basically the entire social capital that was originally interested in an anonymous bitcoin originally bring in $16,963,366 and you're telling me that the price rising to greater than 17 million dollar market cap hinges on the opinion of one broke absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency motherfucker? Please. If that worked I'd be a fucking millionaire right now. Hello there. I never said any such thing about price resulting from one broke/bloke. Rather the price is more a function of the press and media hype that a coin gets. Unfortunately for ShadowCash it has not gotten the attention it yet deserves, as it has been eclipsed by other anon coins such as DRK, which got a first mover advantage. People also got burned out on a lot of anon coin scams, so they are very skeptical of any new coin and tired to look into them all. Also Isidor Zeuner is not some bloke unrelated to cryptocurrency. He is a German cryptographer, and one of the few active members on the Bitcoin developers mailing list. Often his posts are involved with anonymity and privacy. You can read some of Isidor Zeuner's stuff on the bitcoin dev mailing list here: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/Hey I happen to totally be his cousin that knows just as much as he does. I can tell you theres a lot of size, which will lead to overloaded p2p networks as well as hard drives unless pruning is a possibility (still inconsequential because of the massive size of the transactions overloading peoples internet connections - nodes will be permanently centralized), and also theres the lack of security against quantum computing which is the same damn reason cryptonote is seemingly shitting the bed. So, not only will there be the possibility to double spend, the entire transaction history will have a matching quantum algorithm. Don't paint a bag of shit blue and tell me theres chocolates inside critter. Lol, sounds credible. One interesting thing to consider is that recently Evan Duffield the lead DRK developer said that DRK's scheme also causes blockchain bloat, but it isn't as bad because only about 1 in 100 transactions use darksend, and its only used when needed (39 min mark): http://youtu.be/5zPYWEPh_Us?t=39m28sThe same could actually be said for ShadowCash. Because Shadow has two units of account, SDC, and also Shadow (SDT). When sending SDC to SDC there is no bloat at all and it works just like Bitcoin and is transparent. Only when using the Shadow send feature would it create bloat as far as I understand, and Shadow send is only used when needed for privacy. I have heard that the issue of a quantum attack would affect all cryptos in breaking the ECDSA signatures. But this could be protected against by never reusing addresses from what I understand. Also new signing algorithms in the future could be applied to resist such quantum attacks. I have heard Vitalik Buterin suggest updating to Lamport signatures to help guard against certain attacks, not sure if this would help against quantum attacks, but I can remember reading about some other schemes that would. Here is an interesting read on the topic: http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/But the size difference is what's tough to deal with. DRK is using a protocol known to be prunable. Will there be a larger chain - yes. But it will still be smaller than the size due to creating ring signatures - the p2p network likely isn't going to get overloaded. Both CN and the bastardized version of it that is now in use in shadowcash are presumed to be prunable, but there are no public proofs of it to date. The real question here is whether or not fancy mixing will be susceptible to quantum algorithms - in the sense that your transaction history can be traced from the blockchain. I have yet to see anyone claim that, and I believe it would be harder because the privacy is afforded much more from statistics than cryptography in DRK, where CN and SDC offer their privacy through mostly cryptography alone. But again, I'm just the guy's cousin - so all I can really say for sure is do I want 1 in 100,000 or so (meaning: number out of my ass, could be as low as 1 in 2, or even higher than 100k - i dunno) transactions traceable due to a statistical predictability, or do I want every transaction ever recorded on the blockchain to be susceptible to tracing. I'm concentrating on this, because I'm operating under the assumption that the PoW, DS protection, and even transaction creation can move toward a quantum-secure algorithm in the future - but fact is that it's just not there yet. So, I'm left with the really tough decision - do I go with the two methods that currently have a legitimately scary flaw in their reason for existence, one of which has very little infrastructure and one a little bit more - or do I go with the method that has a statistical error that will ultimately lead me to a few, but not all, of my transactions being traceable. It's tough - but I gotta go with the car that's working for now, however few cylinders it's running on. The second I see quantum secure transaction creation, PoW, and DS prevention, as well as pruning (as well as 100+GB bandwidth available to a cryptocurrency) on the CN blockchain is the second I hop back into buy mode. Probably even sooner than that because cryptographic protection > statistical protection IMO, but end of the day, if I actually need to use a private currency in Feb 2015 I'm gonna gave to give it to DRK. If I actually need to use a private currency in 2016, or 2017, after some changes been changed, I'm gonna have to go with CN. Yeah very interesting points. It reminds me what I was thinking the other day, that DRK is kind of like the analog version of anonymity, and zero knowledge/cryptonote type coins are like the digital version. I guess my gut feeling is that digital is better in the long run. But you are right it has certain risks that the analog model does not have. It is different because if it is broken or flawed, then everything is flawed and exposed. Its the same as a television screen, the digital signal is either there or not there, but when you have an analog signal, it can come in as static and be partially there. But I feel a little worried that any coinjoin/mixing scheme could have the possibility to be unwound eventually, where if true zero knowledge crypto exists, its like the holy grail of anonymity and privacy. |
|
|
|
There has been a little bit of a debate about this, which occasionally turns into a troll/flame/FUD fest. People are very defensive about their coins. Personally I feel that SDC has the most promise from things I have seen. However I think we should support all projects that are attempting to increase privacy and anonymity in crypto. Anyways Isidor Zeuner is said to be coming out with a review on ShadowCash in the near future, and I heard he may also be comparing ShadowCash to Monero, DRK, cryptonote, and other anon coins to highlight the similarities and differences. There has been some confusion on this issue. I think that if ShadowCash passes peer review without any critical flaw then it is probably the best anon coin. But I'm sure others who are diehard fans of other anon coins will disagree. Also I should mention that the Shadow Project has other valuable things such as ShadowChat encrypted messaging within the official wallet. Soon they say they will add voice, video, and file support. They are also working on a decentralized marketplace within the official wallet, similar to open bazaar. They also have had many other accomplishments with their wallet and mobile wallets. So, encrypted messaging and basically the opinion of some broke plebian discord result in the amount of $282,482. ring signatures and basically some crazed bible thumpers brought together $1,415,675. while fancy mixing, with basically the entire social capital that was originally interested in an anonymous bitcoin originally bring in $16,963,366 and you're telling me that the price rising to greater than 17 million dollar market cap hinges on the opinion of one broke absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency motherfucker? Please. If that worked I'd be a fucking millionaire right now. Hello there. I never said any such thing about price resulting from one broke/bloke. Rather the price is more a function of the press and media hype that a coin gets. Unfortunately for ShadowCash it has not gotten the attention it yet deserves, as it has been eclipsed by other anon coins such as DRK, which got a first mover advantage. People also got burned out on a lot of anon coin scams, so they are very skeptical of any new coin and tired to look into them all. Also Isidor Zeuner is not some bloke unrelated to cryptocurrency. He is a German cryptographer, and one of the few active members on the Bitcoin developers mailing list. Often his posts are involved with anonymity and privacy. You can read some of Isidor Zeuner's stuff on the bitcoin dev mailing list here: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/Hey I happen to totally be his cousin that knows just as much as he does. I can tell you theres a lot of size, which will lead to overloaded p2p networks as well as hard drives unless pruning is a possibility (still inconsequential because of the massive size of the transactions overloading peoples internet connections - nodes will be permanently centralized), and also theres the lack of security against quantum computing which is the same damn reason cryptonote is seemingly shitting the bed. So, not only will there be the possibility to double spend, the entire transaction history will have a matching quantum algorithm. Don't paint a bag of shit blue and tell me theres chocolates inside critter. Lol, sounds credible. One interesting thing to consider is that recently Evan Duffield the lead DRK developer said that DRK's scheme also causes blockchain bloat, but it isn't as bad because only about 1 in 100 transactions use darksend, and its only used when needed (39 min mark): http://youtu.be/5zPYWEPh_Us?t=39m28sThe same could actually be said for ShadowCash. Because Shadow has two units of account, SDC, and also Shadow (SDT). When sending SDC to SDC there is no bloat at all and it works just like Bitcoin and is transparent. Only when using the Shadow send feature would it create bloat as far as I understand, and Shadow send is only used when needed for privacy. I have heard that the issue of a quantum attack would affect all cryptos in breaking the ECDSA signatures. But this could be protected against by never reusing addresses from what I understand. Also new signing algorithms in the future could be applied to resist such quantum attacks. I have heard Vitalik Buterin suggest updating to Lamport signatures to help guard against certain attacks, not sure if this would help against quantum attacks, but I can remember reading about some other schemes that would. Here is an interesting read on the topic: http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/ |
|
|
|
There has been a little bit of a debate about this, which occasionally turns into a troll/flame/FUD fest. People are very defensive about their coins. Personally I feel that SDC has the most promise from things I have seen. However I think we should support all projects that are attempting to increase privacy and anonymity in crypto. Anyways Isidor Zeuner is said to be coming out with a review on ShadowCash in the near future, and I heard he may also be comparing ShadowCash to Monero, DRK, cryptonote, and other anon coins to highlight the similarities and differences. There has been some confusion on this issue. I think that if ShadowCash passes peer review without any critical flaw then it is probably the best anon coin. But I'm sure others who are diehard fans of other anon coins will disagree. Also I should mention that the Shadow Project has other valuable things such as ShadowChat encrypted messaging within the official wallet. Soon they say they will add voice, video, and file support. They are also working on a decentralized marketplace within the official wallet, similar to open bazaar. They also have had many other accomplishments with their wallet and mobile wallets. So, encrypted messaging and basically the opinion of some broke plebian discord result in the amount of $282,482. ring signatures and basically some crazed bible thumpers brought together $1,415,675. while fancy mixing, with basically the entire social capital that was originally interested in an anonymous bitcoin originally bring in $16,963,366 and you're telling me that the price rising to greater than 17 million dollar market cap hinges on the opinion of one broke absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency motherfucker? Please. If that worked I'd be a fucking millionaire right now. Hello there. I never said any such thing about price resulting from one broke/bloke. Rather the price is more a function of the press and media hype that a coin gets. Unfortunately for ShadowCash it has not gotten the attention it yet deserves, as it has been eclipsed by other anon coins such as DRK, which got a first mover advantage. People also got burned out on a lot of anon coin scams, so they are very skeptical of any new coin and tired to look into them all. Also Isidor Zeuner is not some bloke unrelated to cryptocurrency. He is a German cryptographer, and one of the few active members on the Bitcoin developers mailing list. Often his posts are involved with anonymity and privacy. You can read some of Isidor Zeuner's stuff on the bitcoin dev mailing list here: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/ |
|
|
|
There has been a little bit of a debate about this, which occasionally turns into a troll/flame/FUD fest. People are very defensive about their coins. Personally I feel that SDC has the most promise from things I have seen. However I think we should support all projects that are attempting to increase privacy and anonymity in crypto. Anyways Isidor Zeuner is said to be coming out with a review on ShadowCash in the near future, and I heard he may also be comparing ShadowCash to Monero, DRK, cryptonote, and other anon coins to highlight the similarities and differences. There has been some confusion on this issue. I think that if ShadowCash passes peer review without any critical flaw then it is probably the best anon coin. But I'm sure others who are diehard fans of other anon coins will disagree. Also I should mention that the Shadow Project has other valuable things such as ShadowChat encrypted messaging within the official wallet. Soon they say they will add voice, video, and file support. They are also working on a decentralized marketplace within the official wallet, similar to open bazaar. They also have had many other accomplishments with their wallet and mobile wallets. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone.
If you have encountered or know of any bugs, please send me a PM with the details (Preferably a method on how to reproduce them) so that I can pass the information on to the correct people.
* Add address freezing wallet has been fixed.
* Seg-faulting on rewind chain has also been fixed.
Thanks for your help in making Shadow even better than it is.
* Add address freezing wallet has been fixed.
Woot. Will update in the morning Awesome to hear, keep up the good work guys. |
|
|
|
|
When people try to FUD a project it shows that they see it as a threat. ShadowCash is a threat to DRK and other coins. That is why some bag holders enjoy spreading lies. Pretty pathetic. The day of reckoning will come.
|
|
|
|
Ha that was the plan buddy, appreciate the info muy mucho theres always something up with cryptsy ;;
Yes I was just in contact with Poloniex and they are also reporting an issue with the wallet hanging. But to their credit they got it up and running again very quickly, where cryptsy takes much longer to get anything done. Poloniex said they are in touch with the coin dev to attempt a solution to the issue. |
|
|
|
How long has cryptsys wallet been down, are those dicks just staking?
It has been down for a long time. I contacted mullick, he says its an issue with the daemon locking up, which then puts it into maintenance. He said he is going to re-write the script that puts the wallet into maintenance, so maybe that will fix it. Otherwise he says the devs need to fix something to stop the locking issue. But wallets on other exchanges like Bittrex, and Poloniex have been working pretty well. Although I have to say I deposited on Poloniex today and my SDC hasn't showed up yet, so had to make a ticket. If you have any SDC on Cryptsy right now I would hit that arbitrage opportunity to get the bitcoin, then send to bittrex to rebuy the SDC. If you want, you can PM user mullick here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99433He is the one in charge of fixing Cryptsy wallets. |
|
|
|
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist (1891).
In the future it may be normal to wear a mask when going out in public, to avoid the face scanning cameras. We must protect our anonymity and our rights to anonymity while we are still in a position to do so. To this end Shadow is an empowering technology. Indeed. Its like that ying yang symbol. Tyranny is the dark side, and freedom is the light side. But on the ying yang, the light side still has got that little black dot. That black dot is where ShadowCash resides.  |
|
|
|
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist (1891).
In the future it may be normal to wear a mask when going out in public, to avoid the face scanning cameras. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
