[ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx!

[dasource]

Ebola-Aids?

LOL

Maybe I should change my name to EbolaBob.

No love lost then

[crazytrain]

Btw, where's CryptoHangman? I'm waiting for him to show up & post the same two stupid pictures that he always posts.

Don't know where CryptoHangman is BUT I GOT THIS.

STEALTHCOIN NEW INVESTORS AND BAGHOLDERS IN NEAR FUTURE


WHALES, EMILIO MAN AND BOB´S GROUP

wtf is it true that bob and emilioman are dumping big on XST ?

Everything makes sense right now, these MTFs are dumping heavy.

Please bob and emilioman stop dumping 

[Viper1]

Can the dev explain how adding 'stealth address' mid block chain provides anonymous transactions?

It won't anonymize transactions earlier in the chain (you can't change history). It will anonymize transactions in the future for those who use stealth addresses.

Even if the entire history of an input is known, as soon as that input is sent to a stealth address, it is effectively sent into a black hole with respect to the identity of the recipient.

As long as previous inputs are known (which they are since you added stealth mid block chain) it provides very little benefit.

Why would it matter if previous inputs were known, if future ones are not. A person could create a new wallet/addresses at this point and use the new stealth addresses to now hide themselves could they not?  At least to the level that's currently available given it's not really true anon yet despite what all the "to the moon" boys say.

[tx42]

Why would it matter if previous inputs were known, if future ones are not. A person could create a new wallet/addresses at this point and use the new stealth addresses to now hide themselves could they not?  At least to the level that's currently available given it's not really true anon yet despite what all the "to the moon" boys say.

To fanboys of other coins, nothing is "true anon".

Define "true anon"....

[El_Duderino]

Ebola-Aids?

LOL

Maybe I should change my name to EbolaBob.

EBobla is smoother imo

[tx42]

Coins are traceable back to the coinbase!

Even if you enforce stealthaddresses starting with the genesis block, that statement is still true.

+1 for stating the obvious.

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

[CryptoChronic]

Btw, where's CryptoHangman? I'm waiting for him to show up & post the same two stupid pictures that he always posts.

Don't know where CryptoHangman is BUT I GOT THIS.

STEALTHCOIN NEW INVESTORS AND BAGHOLDERS IN NEAR FUTURE


WHALES, EMILIO MAN AND BOB´S GROUP

wtf is it true that bob and emilioman are dumping big on XST ?

Everything makes sense right now, these MTFs are dumping heavy.

Please bob and emilioman stop dumping 

[pookielax31]

Coins are traceable back to the coinbase!

Even if you enforce stealthaddresses starting with the genesis block, that statement is still true.

+1 for stating the obvious.

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

No1 uses the thread....... come into IRC and ask him a Q the dev is always answering

[tx42]

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

can't wait for the snarks science!

So we know which one is pink. But which one is snark?

[tx42]

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

No1 uses the thread....... come into IRC and ask him a Q the dev is always answering

He uses the thread enough to delete my posts.

[Viper1]

Why would it matter if previous inputs were known, if future ones are not. A person could create a new wallet/addresses at this point and use the new stealth addresses to now hide themselves could they not?  At least to the level that's currently available given it's not really true anon yet despite what all the "to the moon" boys say.

To fanboys of other coins, nothing is "true anon".

Define "true anon"....

I don't know. Since you have superior knowledge (but didn't answer my question), why don't you tell me.  It is nice to see you admit that XST isn't really anon though. So unlike the fanboys of XST.

[Bobsurplus]

Coins are traceable back to the coinbase!

Even if you enforce stealthaddresses starting with the genesis block, that statement is still true.

+1 for stating the obvious.

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

LOL I bet you are.. And just wait a bit longer... LMAO... You'll be taking profit at 30K when all the haters will be buying in.

Oh its ironic.

[00Smurf]

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

No1 uses the thread....... come into IRC and ask him a Q the dev is always answering

He uses the thread enough to delete my posts.

Hrmm,

He seems to answer everyone else.

Quoted from (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.msg8971700#msg8971700)

I've got a few question about this coin and hopefully someone can give me some answers.

1. Where's the source? Looked at both threads, the official site, the wiki and either I'm completely blind or is it not open source?

2. What method does the PoS use? Like peercoin with coin age? Like NXT? Or like the newer BC PoS V2 or Reddcoin PoSV? Or maybe something unique?

3. Is the coin based on ZeroCash? From what I've read and with the upcoming implementation of zk-snarks it would appear it is.

4. Assuming it's based on ZeroCash, I'm wondering about:

4a. "They used a brand new technic called SNARK, which has certain downsides: for example, a large initial database of public parameters required to create a signature (more than 1 GB) and the significant time required to create a transaction (more than a minute)" - What does all this really mean and what, in terms of practical use, would it mean to users?

4b. "Another important note is about trusted setup in Zerocoin. In easy words the whole system is based on some secret values nobody should know (for example, this secret allows to make a double spend). How to acquire these values? ZC devs says: we can generate them and then "forget" OR we can implement the special algorithm to do in a distributed way at the system start (everybody know only his own part of the secret)." - does this issue also exist in Zerocash and (if Shadow uses it), ShadowCoin as well?

4c. "The proofs of Zerocash can be computed by a i7 single core 2.7 GHz CPU in a matter of 3 minutes" - What exactly are these "proofs" and again, what would this mean to regular users?

I really don't understand fully the difference between Zerocoin and ZeroCash etc so not sure if all this really would apply but maybe someone in the know could educate me.

Hi Viper

1. The project is open source, the link for the repo is on the ANN theres a little icon for Github. I can see how you would miss it though., we should probably add a link to it.  https://github.com/SDCDev/shadowcoin
2. Shadow is using coin weight/age. Any change to the PoS scheme will happen after zk.
3. ShadowSend is based on a combination of dual-key stealth addresses and zero knowledge proofs. The underlying technology in ZeroCash is zk-snarks, but the initial setup of the parameters in zerocash requires trust. Shadow is using its own zero knowledge scheme (proving a statement without revealing any information) and our setup doesn't require trust.
4a. In the WP they are referencing the initial parameters of Zerocash. Our system uses a different setup, so that issue only applies to ZC. All this translates to for the end user is that the ZC opts for a trusted setup.
4b. This is a non-issue because of 4a.
4c. https://self-evident.org/?p=995
Here's a detailed video covering the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXU65XsLiFk
I've attached this pdf for zero knowledge in laymen's terms: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf

Awesome, thanks for the details answers.  Yeah, now that I look back at the OP, I can see the source icon there.  I just assumed those were all some sort of wallet downloads lol

So I was just looking up "dual key stealth" and came across DarkWallet. Then I came across this post of yours which actually laid it out a bit more clearly for me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8153845#msg8153845

Am I correct if I were to say that ShadowSend is an improved derivative of DarkWallet? Or maybe that's not really fair to say as I can't figure out who actually implemented what first. lol

So right now there seems to be I guess 4 anon "methods".  We've got Darkcoin which one could argue isn't all that trustless given you need the masternodes.  Then there's CN which, near as I can tell, is generally perceived as the only "true" anon implementation out there.  I found it interesting though that one of the CN guys seemed to be saying ZeroCash was a more advanced method although I'm not sure if he also meant better. And then there's some other coin that will remain nameless that seems to be implementing some derivative of CN which they claim will resolve at least the blockchain bloat issue of CN coins.  The Monero guys recently put out a white paper outlining some issues with CN that could potentially result in exploits.

So, if we assume that CN is the "best" currently despite some of it's issues, what makes ShadowSend better and what are some of the issues with it. i.e what are the currently known Pros and Cons.

Hey Viper,

We're actually working on a overview that will chart the pros and cons of each unique anon protocol. Approaches that don't use zero knowledge either mix or mask the transaction by using nodes, pools or group signatures. ZK protocols make the transactions invisible in a way that only the sender and receiver know about the transaction. It would be the same as thinking of paying someone in cash and not keeping a receipt. The only people who would know about the transaction is the buyer and the seller. The other approaches like mixing or group signatures could be looked at as paying by cash, but using something like western union or a money order to facilitate the transaction. Although the transaction is technically cash there would be a way to figure out and/or trace the transaction some harder than others.. ZK and it's variants are the closest thing to a cash transaction in cryptography.

A couple benefits of Shadow over CN would be a compressed blockchain vs bloated one. Shadow has a Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) system in place with ShadowLite (thinmode=1) that already helps reduce the bloat.

Ok, thanks.

[LongAndShort]

Coins are traceable back to the coinbase!

Even if you enforce stealthaddresses starting with the genesis block, that statement is still true.

+1 for stating the obvious.

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev


Basically you wanted to see a showcase of zk-snarks and you would then "open your wallet and buy shadow" no one was really interested in selling you their coin or the fact the countless times we all said its not ready yet .

When it is you will see its implementation in its full released form which some time later you will be able to use it on any other coin. We've said it before and we'll say it again it, if pulled off it will close the anon debate so we can all move on and see most of you flock to another fad while we sit here working on your kids futures!

[argakiig]

Coins are traceable back to the coinbase!

Even if you enforce stealthaddresses starting with the genesis block, that statement is still true.

+1 for stating the obvious.

Wont be with zk-snarks layer!

Like I asked on the shadow thread, how is zk-snarks going to be layered to improve the anonymity? No one answered, not even the developer. Instead, he deleted my posts. So I came back here and bought more XST. And I'm richer for it.

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev

Correct me if im wrong, but that sounds like a mixer...
IMHO thats a step backwards

[EmilioMann]

These are dasource and others from cloak's dev team after dumping cloakcoin and disappear 20 days ago without deliver nothing that they promised.
Has cloakcoin any feature?
Dasource bitch, please... get out from here.

[tx42]

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev

No one on the shadow thread posted this. I gave them plenty of opportunity. It's an insufficient description, but a lot better than I got on the shadow thread. It looks like the idea is to use zk-proofs to circumvent public key cryptography. I'll find out if this is something that has shown up in the literature as the theory should be in place before the application. If the shadow dev had a citation to this effect somewhere on the OP, then we might be talking.

[pookielax31]

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev

No one on the shadow thread posted this. I gave them plenty of opportunity. It's an insufficient description, but a lot better than I got on the shadow thread. It looks like the idea is to use zk-proofs to circumvent public key cryptography. I'll find out if this is something that has shown up in the literature as the theory should be in place before the application. If the shadow dev had a citation to this effect somewhere on the OP, then we might be talking.

or you could just wait about 15 days when ZK is implemented in shadow     Thus leaving your tech that wont be out till November outdated and obsolete... but its ok when ZK is opensourced Hondo can copy and paste that

[tx42]

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev

No one on the shadow thread posted this. I gave them plenty of opportunity. It's an insufficient description, but a lot better than I got on the shadow thread. It looks like the idea is to use zk-proofs to circumvent public key cryptography. I'll find out if this is something that has shown up in the literature as the theory should be in place before the application. If the shadow dev had a citation to this effect somewhere on the OP, then we might be talking.

or you could just wait about 15 days when ZK is implemented in shadow     Thus leaving your tech that wont be out till November outdated and obsolete... but its ok when ZK is opensourced Hondo can copy and paste that

I'm not going to buy vapor concepts. Hondo has cited literature that outlines the theory behind his plans. The post above doesn't address theory at all. So my money wouldn't chase it. You can bet with yours. I like sure things.

[00Smurf]

Coins are removed from circulation, effectively placed in escrow when they are placed in an anonymous output.
We need to prove that we redeemed an output, without revealing which output was redeemed and a redeem transaction would look like a coinbase.
The redeem transaction destroys one of the anonymous outputs but it is not possible to know which one was destroyed.
It won't be possible to use the same output twice, as it would require a secret key which becomes known to everyone when the output is redeemed.
The zk-proof proves the secret key is linked to an output in the set, but only the redeemer knows which one. -SDCDev

No one on the shadow thread posted this. I gave them plenty of opportunity. It's an insufficient description, but a lot better than I got on the shadow thread. It looks like the idea is to use zk-proofs to circumvent public key cryptography. I'll find out if this is something that has shown up in the literature as the theory should be in place before the application. If the shadow dev had a citation to this effect somewhere on the OP, then we might be talking.

or you could just wait about 15 days when ZK is implemented in shadow     Thus leaving your tech that wont be out till November outdated and obsolete... but its ok when ZK is opensourced Hondo can copy and paste that

They can copy and paste any open source code they want as long as credit and copyrights are given, which they have done so far.