[SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA

[smooth]

CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND SHOULD BE ON HOLD TILL MORE INFO COMES FROM SDC DEVS

Fair enough, but I keep telling you there is no "CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND" except that one particular person seems to want to make it into that.

NO!! i just want you to cut it out couldn't care less for cryptonote, i bought em i dumped em now im here, why are you?

Because I was discussing some technical issues about SDC and shadowsend before you starting talking about some other coins.

I was also invited to have this conversation by other members of the SDC community who don't share your ugly and combative approach.

[1714063413]

1714063413

[dadon]

CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND SHOULD BE ON HOLD TILL MORE INFO COMES FROM SDC DEVS

Fair enough, but I keep telling you there is no "CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND" except that one particular person seems to want to make it into that.

NO!! i just want you to cut it out couldn't care less for cryptonote, i bought em i dumped em now im here, why are you?

Because I was discussing some technical issues about SDC and shadowsend before you starting talking about some other coins.

I was also invited to have this conversation by other members of the SDC community who don't share your ugly and combative approach.

Constantly repeating in every post you make how SDC is the same as cryptonote is not technical analysis it's being a broken record, you have said the same thing like 10 times, and you said you haven't even studied the code only read the white paper, you don't even have any SDC im guessing, my approach maybe "ugly and combative" but yours is smooth and sneaky like your name.

[child_harold]

CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND SHOULD BE ON HOLD TILL MORE INFO COMES FROM SDC DEVS

Fair enough, but I keep telling you there is no "CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND" except that one particular person seems to want to make it into that.

Cool. We are of an accord.

Bear in mind a crytographer is involved in Shadowsend, Techovert. If, as you say, ssv2 is an implementation of cryptonote, then why would Ryno collaborate with him? Ryno certainly has the skill to build an implementation of cryptonote without any help…

hmmm…

We wait.
(some of us anyway, lulz)

[dadon]

It's not the same. Why would had our devs bother to spend thousands hours of coding if so...  the way you say this is a bit misleading IMHO.

]

I never said it was the same. I said the anonymity uses the same underlying approach as cryptonote so the resulting anonymity is the same (or worse, if minting/destroy is used too much, but that is up to the users I suppose). I acknowledged some minor differences, but I don't believe they are particularly significant in the area of anonymity.

As for why thousands of hours were spent on it, you would have to ask them. Presumably they thought that reimplementing it all was a good idea for whatever collection of reasons. I guess the market will decide.

Question, can cryptonote coins slot in updated technology to there code without starting from scratch? because i know SDC can without starting from scratch so yeah maybe it's based on the same technique as cryptonote but it can be improved and it's faster and slimmer and the wallet is the best looking and functioning wallet in the crypto world with chat and many extras coming soon so right now we win   we will have mobile wallets in the near future with all this tech would like to see any of the cryptonote coins pull that off.

Here is my first post ever to you, you were comparing SDC to cryptonote, and i brought up bytecoin the first cryptonote coin, every single one of your posts has been the same.

[dadon]

Excellent post CST.  Worth restating is the fact that cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them... a huge difference.

I notice that I was quoted above.

There is no huge difference guys. Shadow is using almost exactly the same protocol (and methods of providing anonymity) as cryptonote with some minor tweaks (fewer denominations for each digit, which either way is a reasonable but somewhat arbitrary trade off between chain size and anonymity set size)

rest my case, just a broken record, don't talk about cryptonote if you don't want me to bring up bytecoin the original cryptonote coin.

[smooth]

Excellent post CST.  Worth restating is the fact that cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them... a huge difference.

I notice that I was quoted above.

There is no huge difference guys. Shadow is using almost exactly the same protocol (and methods of providing anonymity) as cryptonote with some minor tweaks (fewer denominations for each digit, which either way is a reasonable but somewhat arbitrary trade off between chain size and anonymity set size)

rest my case, just a broken record, don't talk about cryptonote if you don't want me to bring up bytecoin the original crtptonote coin.

What case?

I was quoted, and then someone claimed that "cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them" which is complete and utter nonsense. The subsequent discussion explained how minting and redeeming has nothing to do with anonymity and in fact could impair it under some conditions.

Everyone reading it except you seemed to get the point. Open your mind a bit, some good info might find its way in there.

[child_harold]

CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND SHOULD BE ON HOLD TILL MORE INFO COMES FROM SDC DEVS

Fair enough, but I keep telling you there is no "CRYPTONOTE VS SHADOWSEND" except that one particular person seems to want to make it into that.

Cool. We are of an accord.

Bear in mind a crytographer is involved in Shadowsend, Techovert. If, as you say, ssv2 is an implementation of cryptonote, then why would Ryno collaborate with him? Ryno certainly has the skill to build an implementation of cryptonote without any help…

hmmm…

We wait.
(some of us anyway, lulz)

bump (already!)

[smooth]

Bear in mind a crytographer is involved in Shadowsend, Techovert. If, as you say, ssv2 is an implementation of cryptonote, then why would Ryno collaborate with him? Ryno certainly has the skill to build an implementation of cryptonote without any help…

I'm not familar with this technovert. What else has he accomplished?

Assuming your developer is not a cryptographer and employed the assistance of one, that speaks well of him. There are certainly aspects of shadowsenc that are different from cryptonote (such as the way it integrates with the non-anonymous SDC), and any changes or differences in context should be reviewed by a cryptographer, yes.

[dadon]

Excellent post CST.  Worth restating is the fact that cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them... a huge difference.

I notice that I was quoted above.

There is no huge difference guys. Shadow is using almost exactly the same protocol (and methods of providing anonymity) as cryptonote with some minor tweaks (fewer denominations for each digit, which either way is a reasonable but somewhat arbitrary trade off between chain size and anonymity set size)

rest my case, just a broken record, don't talk about cryptonote if you don't want me to bring up bytecoin the original crtptonote coin.

What case?

I was quoted, and then someone claimed that "cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them" which is complete and utter nonsense. The subsequent discussion explained how minting and redeeming has nothing to do with anonymity and in fact could impair it under some conditions.

Everyone reading it except you seemed to get the point. Open your mind a bit, some good info might find its way in there.

My case is that every single one of your posts compares SDC to Cryptonote, and then you act like i brought up some random coin when i brought up bytecoin and that is a cryptonote coin, my case is your just a cryptonote troll and i'm done talking with you.

[dadon]

Bear in mind a crytographer is involved in Shadowsend, Techovert. If, as you say, ssv2 is an implementation of cryptonote, then why would Ryno collaborate with him? Ryno certainly has the skill to build an implementation of cryptonote without any help…

I'm not familar with this technovert. What else has he accomplished?

Assuming your developer is not a cryptographer and employed the assistance of one, that speaks well of him. There are certainly aspects of shadowsenc that are different from cryptonote (such as the way it integrates with the non-anonymous SDC), and any changes or differences in context should be reviewed by a cryptographer, yes.

see every single post hahaha you just can't type a sentance without cryptonote in it can you

[smooth]

My case is that every single one of your posts compares SDC to Cryptonote, and then you act like i brought up some random coin when i brought up bytecoin and that is a cryptonote coin, my case is your just a cryptonote troll and i'm done talking with you.

Once again, look carefully at the quote you copied from above:

Excellent post CST.  Worth restating is the fact that cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them... a huge difference.

I was not the one that compared Shadow with cryptonote, Longenecker was. I responded to the innaccuracy in his post, just as I've responded to the many inaccuracies in yours.

[dadon]

My case is that every single one of your posts compares SDC to Cryptonote, and then you act like i brought up some random coin when i brought up bytecoin and that is a cryptonote coin, my case is your just a cryptonote troll and i'm done talking with you.

Once again, look carefully at the quote you copied from above:

Excellent post CST.  Worth restating is the fact that cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them... a huge difference.

I was not the one that compared Shadow with cryptonote, Longenecker was. I responded to the innaccuracy in his post, just as I've responded to the many inaccuracies in yours.

SO you didn't say that SDC and Cryptonote was basically the same, you didn't say that?

[child_harold]

Bear in mind a crytographer is involved in Shadowsend, Techovert. If, as you say, ssv2 is an implementation of cryptonote, then why would Ryno collaborate with him? Ryno certainly has the skill to build an implementation of cryptonote without any help…

I'm not familar with this technovert. What else has he accomplished?

Assuming your developer is not a cryptographer and employed the assistance of one, that speaks well of him. There are certainly aspects of shadowsenc that are different from cryptonote (such as the way it integrates with the non-anonymous SDC), and any changes or differences in context should be reviewed by a cryptographer, yes.

I was (and am) curious about who Techovert is and what he might have done before.
Unfortunately (but fittingly) he remains a complete mystery and has made no appearances in IRC or BCT as far as I can tell.

[dasource]

Guys/Gals, can we please please stop getting carried away with this shadow and cryptonote...  Shadow is not based on cryptonote and does not function like cryptonote!

Sorry, but you are incorrect. It is using the exact same techniques of one time ring signatures (intractability) and stealth addresses (unlinkability). The code may be brand new but the cryptography techniques and math behind the one time ring signatures are the same (which include the zero knowledge proof) and were invented by cryptonote.

I could go and rewrite the code to do this stuff yet again (in fact I have done so for my own experimental purposes) but I wouldn't claim it to be anything other than a reimplementation of cryptonote. Someone else on the Monero project did it in python, and called it mininero.

If anyone is claiming otherwise they are either confused or trying to scam you (I don't suggest the latter necessarily, just pointing out the possibilities).

Firstly, my post on this thread was to clear the confusion amongst those who do not fully understand ShadowSend i.e. "ShadowCash a CryptoNote based currency" etc.. It is quite obvious this is coming from this thread and all the talk of CryptoNote and Shadow

Secondly, I am sorry but you are wrong. I very carefully choose my words and repeat ...

Guys/Gals, can we please please stop getting carried away with this shadow and cryptonote...  Shadow is not based on cryptonote and does not function like cryptonote!

Thanks

So lets address my two points

1. Shadow is not based on CryptoNote
Shadow is as much based on CryptoNote as CryptoNote is based on Bitcoin by your analogy. Surely because CryptoNote has a blockchain and uses PoW the CrytoNote developers based their entire technology on Bitcoin? That sounds as absurd as your statement saying Shadow is based on CryptoNote.

Yes there has been inspiration, just like the CrytoNote developers where inspired by Satoshis work; However Shadow is *NOT* based on CryptoNote. If it was (and I am sure it would have been much easier for the team) they would have just called this "ShadowSend a CryotoNote implementation on Bitcoin codebase".
There is in total 9 white papers referenced in the ShadowSend whitepaper. Today ring sigs are used and tomorrow it will be something entirely different as technology matures.

2. Shadow does not function like CrytoNote
This is the easiest to address, just because ShadowSend uses Stealth Addresses + Ring Sigs does not mean it functions like CryptoNote ...
For starters in Shadow you can move from SDC to SDT which uses a technique of minting similar to ZeroCoin. Shadow keyimages are reusable whereas in CryptoNote they are one-time if I recall correctly. The list is endless of how Shadow differs from CryptoNote.

ShadowSend is a unique implementation and should and will hold its own against the likes of CrytoNote/ZeroCash etc.

Lastly and most importantly coming back to the reason I originally posted; I really could care less about you did this first and you copied my style of x ... What is important to me is that those that are reading this thread over the past several dozen pages are getting confused with all this referencing of CryptoNote and Shadow hence why we are seeing confusing and misleading (I am not pointing fingers) statements.

All I am asking for is lets keep this sensible until we have clear hard facts and those far more intelligent that I have reviewed the full implementation. I know the team are working on some material to help understand this better.

Lastly Lastly, we are all here for the same purpose (I hope) .. lets support one another!
P.S. I am on the road so mind any typos/grammar!
P.S. This is my opinion and not that of the brains behind ShadowSend and I am sure they will chime their two shadowshi's worth.

[dadon]

^^^ What he said

[smooth]

Shadow is as much based on CryptoNote as CryptoNote is based on Bitcoin by your analogy. Surely because CryptoNote has a blockchain and uses PoW the CrytoNote developers based their entire technology on Bitcoin? That sounds as absurd as your statement saying Shadow is based on CryptoNote.

You may claim that is absurd, and yet, the cryptonote whitepaper references bitcoin extensively! They recognize that their system takes many ideas from Bitcoin and builds upon them. They likewise give credit in their white paper, and clearly explain what part of their work is new and what is based on bitcoin. In fact the entire first section of the cryptonote white paper explains this. Have you read it?

Can you clearly explain this (i.e. which parts -- specifically -- are original, and which are derivative) with respect to shadowsend? Because the shadowsend whitepaper doesn't.

just because ShadowSend uses Stealth Addresses + Ring Sigs does not mean it functions like CryptoNote

That is nonsense, because stealth addresses plus ring signatures is exactly the method used by the anonymity functions of cryptonote, and cryptonote was the inventor of using these methods for a distributed cryptocurrency. Why is that so hard to understand?

Shadow keyimages are reusable whereas in CryptoNote they are one-time if I recall correctly.

False. Quoting from the Shadowsend whitepaper: "The blockchain is searched for the provided keyImage, if one is found the transaction is
considered a double­spend attempt and denied."

This works exactly the same.

The list is endless of how Shadow differs from CryptoNote.

The list is not endless.

As far as I can tell the list is:

1. Shadow transactions occur on a Bitcoin-style chain (transaction formats, etc.), wheres the cryptonote implementation has its own blockchain and transaction formats.

2. Shadow shares a blockchain with a non-anonymous coin SDC. Operations allow exchanging one for the other.

3. Some relatively minor implementation details of the Shadow anonymity scheme differ, such as the denominations used. Likewise, I read somewhere that Shadow uses a different elliptical curve for its elliptical curve cryptography, though I can't find that in the white paper.

This is my opinion and not that of the brains behind ShadowSend

Then why are you arguing about something you don't understand?

[dadon]

So in other words you are saying SDC is basically the same as cryptonote once again, but claimed a few posts ago you never compared the two, your smart as shit, but lay off the drugs bro, you can't even remember what you said yesterday.

[child_harold]

@smooth

quote dasource:

I know the team are working on some material to help understand this better.
…
P.S. I am on the road

[dadon]

hey everyone! did you know cars are really just the same as a horse and carriage because they both have wheels, i know crazy huh! just like SDC and Cryptonote are the same because they both have ring signatures..

[4M8B]

Some quotes from Ryno to refresh your minds :

Our scheme was never going to be perfect, and we have said on a few occasions that we will only be utilising a basic nizkp until zk-snarks is fully out and trustless.

The reason we opted for anonymous tokens, instead of direct anonymous outputs to ringsigs, is because we're building towards direction we're heading in. What we're striving for... Encrypted values, with perfect nizkps, proving all values of inputs are real, without revealing any information about where they come from.

We're looking at many things, like homomorphic encryption, snarks, etc...
http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/976
snarks are advancing, along with many other ideas... We are not for limiting ourselves, but for bettering our [collective] future