I don't really think the overall name should change, but just maybe the name of the 2 different units could be improved, so I voted no.  I like Shadow as the overall project name.  I also like "shade" as one possible alternative to "shadow tokens".  I like Shade without the "s" on the end, I think it sounds better.  I don't really like "lytes" or "lyte" that much for SDC, but its not bad.  But it may get confusing for people. Also it could be confused with litecoin and stuff.

One other suggestion I thought of would be "show".  Like send from "show" to "shadow", or send from "show" to "shade".  Or something like that.  The similarity between the letters in show and shadow would be an interesting play on words.  But I am not final on this either, just bouncing some suggestions around.  We could keep it as ShadowCoins, and use "shade" as substitue for "shadow tokens" and that might be good too.

Edit:  Or also from "shine" to "shadow" is another suggestion.

I think the name is decent.  One possible issue is the aspect of the two units. There are 2 units, one is SDC and the other is Shadow as we call them now.  This could be confusing because SDC (ShadowCash/ShadowCoin) also has Shadow in the name, along with "Shadow" the anonymous tokens.  One suggestion I have thought of would be to switch from the name "Shadow" for the anonymous token to the name "Shade" instead. Like "hey yo, send me 50 Shade...Ok 50 Shade sent".  That kind of thing.

Stop trashing the coin with no proof or details.  Its expected for the audit to point out areas of improvements, this is hardly a "fail".  Your ominous warnings with no proof of anything, is highly irresponsible.

Isidor Zeuner is a German cryptographer and also a prominent member of the bitcoin developer mailing list. There are not that many people active on the developer mailing list, but he is one of them.  You can read some of his stuff here: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/

We have raised over 5 btc for him to help audit ShadowCash.  Info here: http://shadowtalk.org/topic/321/shadowcash-whitepaper-review-and-code-audit

Also as a note, if the audit turns up any flaws or problems with the Shadow system, then its a good thing, and the developers can work to plug holes, and improve the system.  Its probably likely that there can be some improvements, but this is hardly a "fail".  When Kristov Atlas audited the DRK codebase, he found some flaws in their coinjoin scheme, which they improved upon.  This is all part of becoming a hardened coin.

You are the FUDster.  FUD stands for Fear Uncertainy and Doubt.  A FUDster does not provide details, because details lead to certainty.  You are all about FUDDing, and spreading Uncertainty, not certainty.  Period.

Nah its probably just some FUD from someone who dumped all their SDC by accident, and now they want to buy back cheaper.  If it were real, they would be able to provide details.

Guys, if anyone has a Cryptsy account, it might help to e-mail them with a support ticket and ask them to fix ShadowCash wallet.  It has been broken for about a month.

Ask for Mullick, he is the one to fix wallets.  Tell them if they have syncing issues, to go to debug window and console in wallet, then type "rewindchain 249000", then press enter and wait.

Or if you prefer just tell them to delist our coin.  They are hurting Shadow by giving the appearance that the coin is broken and that is why its been in maintenance for a month, when really its their own incompetence.  I have even talked to people in the chat box, and they try to tell me its not Cryptsy's fault, and ShadowCash must be a broken coin and they need the dev to fix it, which is complete bull.

Care to elaborate?  What failed?  If an audit was done, and found vulnerabilities or problems, then that is actually a success, and a step towards progress. 

A more likely event for failure in my opinion would be if Isidor Zeuner is too busy or incapable or doing an audit.

Darkcoin developer Evan Duffield was on this show I just watched.  He was criticizing zero knowledge coins, saying they have problems such as blockchain bloat, and need to trust the developers. But he says his DRK coinjoin scheme could be "called fort knox of crypto". Does ShadowCash still require trust for their scheme, or didn't they solve this yet?

Zero knowledge discussion starts at 8:30 mark:  http://youtu.be/lzu_02-lp7o?t=8m30s

My man Child_Harold is all over it with the 1st comment:  

I really agree, I don't feel too confident in coinjoin schemes, or master nodes.  Zero knowledge is where its at.  The video left a bad taste in my mouth.  It gave the opinion of someone simply trying to sell their coin. He wouldn't even acknowledge the value of zero knowledge solutions. Instead it was his job to criticize any competition as best he can, and tell you don't look there, buy DRK instead.

Anyone else pissed off that ShadowCash wallet on Crypsty has been broken for like 2 or 3 weeks?  Its hurting the coin.  Newbs often look at Cryptsy first when checking out new coins.  The volume there is a joke because the wallet is always broken.  They look on Crypsty then see that there is no volume and the wallet is in constant maintenance, and they just assume that the coin doesn't matter or is not important, or not gaining traction to make it worth buying.  People don't even know that Bittrex has decent volume for SDC.

Can we organize some kind of effort to e-mail spam Cryptsy and user Mullick who is in charge of their wallets?  Its just ridiculous and is holding back adoption of ShadowCash.

Nice work!

Time to say GG to the competition:   1GGzBQXnouv2LvSvBLcT9vR8CZ3X1sQi6y

Yeah SDC is more transparent kind of like Bitcoin, while the Shadow Tokens are anonymous using dual-key stealth addresses, traceable ring signatures, and non-interactive zero knowledge proofs, according to the white paper here: http://shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcash-anon.pdf

There is a good slide presentation on how the system works here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g577a31a2a_086

Also we are trying to raise Bitcoin so we can have a code audit of the system by Isidor Zeuner who is a prominent guy on the Bitcoin mailing list.  Info here: http://shadowtalk.org/topic/321/shadowcash-whitepaper-review-and-code-audit

I don't think its fair to call operators of dark markets the worst of people.  Many of them are honorable and good people.  This particular website seems to honor true values by not allowing stolen credit cards or other harmful things, but just allowing a free market to operate for drugs and stuff.  Personally I think the drug war, and prohibition is horrible and causes a lot more problems than it solves.  Although I agree drugs can really be harmful, and I don't do them, I think its also harmful to lock people in a cage for drugs.  Studies showed that the original Silk Road reduced violence, and made things a lot safer.  I think it would be great if they implemented ShadowCash into their system.

Basically there are 2 units of account, both SDC, and Shadow (SDT).  The Shadow is completely anonymous, while the SDC is transparent and can be tracked easily on the blockchain.  So its the best of both worlds really.  I think this slide presentation by CoolStoryTeller is good for explaining how the system works:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g577a31a2a_086

Also, it may be beneficial to put this presentation in the OP for new people to check it out and understand how it works.

Question:  If I change SDC to Shadow it seems general consensus is it helps the network.  It seems the issue is in the wallet it occasionally says something on the lines of "not enough anonymous outputs".  So therefore changing SDC to Shadow is creating more anonymous outputs I am assuming.  But what happens when you change from Shadow back to SDC, does this reduce the number of anonymous outputs or does anonymous outputs still remain the same?  If it remains the same it would mean its advantageous to transfer from SDC to Shadow, back to SDC and back to Shadow many times, to increase the anonymous outputs.  Any insight?

There is this new site "Silk Road Reloaded" that operates on i2p: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/silk-road-reloaded-i2p

They use BTC, DRK, Anoncoin, and a bunch of others I guess.  They say they will be adding more coins too.  Seems like Shadow would be a good fit.

Yeah I donated.  But according to trollsroyce, Isidor agreed to do it without a fee:  "So far, Isidor is the only qualified person that has stepped up to the plate without asking for a fee first and on that principal I believe he deserves to be compensated for his work. If and when other reviewers become available we'll start up a contribution/donation list accordingly."(http://shadowtalk.org/topic/321/shadowcash-whitepaper-review-and-code-audit).  Sounds like we were compensating out of goodness of our hearts.

I plan to donate more once the review is completed, if its completed.

How long before the review by Isidor Zeuner is completed?

Cryptsy wallet still not fixed.  I feel bad for anybody with SDC stuck in there.  Even if they fix it, I am scared to deposit any there, it might get locked up for months.

Yeah for anyone having syncing issues, just go to help then debug window, then click on console tab.  Then type rewindchain 249000 , then press enter and leave it for a bit.  Thanks to dadon for that one.