You FUD me? All my points are valid. I'm not crazy although I almost went out of my mind waiting for Zeuner.
I'll tell you a story…
His name is Ivan. He's a software developer.
My enthusiasm for SDC at the time led him to read the shadowsendv2 whitepaper at
http://shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcash-anon.pdf and download the windows wallet about four months ago. Ivan described the wallet as buggy and unresponsive and he was equally upset by the whitepaper which he criticized for being uninformative and incomplete. He asked why both NIZKPs and ring sigs were being used when, as he understood things, either one on its own was sufficient to provide anonymity. Ivan did not invest.
You might like to think of Ivan as a figment of my imagination as I sit there ranting to myself. Alas no, he's real. And he's right.
The whitepaper is somewhere between not good at all and really really bad. The previous whitepaper for shadowchat (which Ivan has not read) seems equally thin and is even shorter in length. It does not appear much effort has gone into producing the whitepaper, and even less so any other technical documentation. It is completely understandable Zeuner would request more information.
Security and anonymity in software cannot be claimed but rather must be proven over time through rigorous testing and expert analysis. I do not understand why nine months after the release of shadowsendv2 we are still nowhere closer to understanding the technology, and I find it
hard to believe the creators would not be proud enough to have explained by now. Trusting the in-house cryptographer who has never posted anywhere and is an unknown entity is simply not good enough after almost 10 months.
Furthermore It is unclear if the market will be suitable for selling contraband since human readable addresses are required to send goods to, as they always must be I suppose. What prevents FBI honeypots and under-covers gathering customer information? I do not know. Sending money anonymously appears a lower hanging fruit than sending goods anonymously.
As things stand now there is no hope of any tech documentation or improved whitepaper or Zeuner review or ANY review until well into 2016. In fact given recent comments I would not be surprised if Zeuner told the Team to shove it and returned the 5BTC, assuming he holds the private key to the donation address.
As I see it you have
two choices:
1.) Publish a new and improved whitepaper and technical documentation and provide closure on matters raised regarding the PoW phase which lasted not 30 but 11 days and what appears to be a powerful solo miner.
2.) Or not, and risk losing more credibility.
I am not the only one who feels this way…
* child_harold drops the mic
