[SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA

[coinzcoinzcoinz]

Question: The "Transactions" tab in the wallet does not update if a transaction has happened during your wallet session. You need to restart the wallet for the transaction to show. Is this getting improved? I mean, this is a pretty basic requirement. Stuff like this should work as expected.

Please note that everything else about this coin is awesome.

[1713890371]

1713890371

[1713890371]

1713890371

[1713890371]

1713890371

[1713890371]

1713890371

[1713890371]

1713890371

[pookielax31]

this is how i feel about these prices....



 transferring over btc at end of day to pick up some more on the low low prices

[LiteBit]

Maybe people want dump sdc,Buy Xpy.

Sure, I can't wait to get some XPY. It's just like using a credit card, but without that all that buyer's protection.

Even better, send me your credit card information and Ill buy some XPY for you. Since you don`t know me, we can say this is an anonymous transaction.

Ill send your XPY once purchased. xD

Has XPY any relation to paypal except typo and look alike name?

The only thing common between the two of them is: STAY CLEAR!

[dasource]

The mined amounts are considerably larger, and I assume that is due to the large Shadow transfer fee being processed in the blocks and distributed to the stakers. Nice touch, that will help distribute the coin a bit.

PM me a TX so I can double check it but yes it would seem if you are lucky enough to mine a block which has a Shadow TX then the fee will be collected by you. (Shadow fee is 100x normal fee)

One thing that isn't clear to me- the wallet doesn't seem to be telling me how much of my wallet balance is Shadow and how much is SDC.

You should see a Shadow balance too (both GUI and daemon)

[skip60]

congratulations to the devs and the community, and thanks again for the tech

what i see again

it is really hard to understand the logic of altcoin market (by the way, i dont think there is a logic here)

anyway, with time we will see; whether just tech is enough for the market or the market based on pump and dump only

if it is pump and dump only...it is a pity and better i find another place for my investment

[Automatic Monkey]

Maybe people want dump sdc,Buy Xpy.

Sure, I can't wait to get some XPY. It's just like using a credit card, but without that all that buyer's protection.

Even better, send me your credit card information and Ill buy some XPY for you. Since you don`t know me, we can say this is an anonymous transaction.

Ill send your XPY once purchased. xD

Has XPY any relation to paypal except typo and look alike name?

The only thing common between the two of them is: STAY CLEAR!

Good idea for now. I think a coin to be used as a proxy for fiat would be a useful thing. What I would do would be premine it all, and each coin would represent a basket of fiats held in Cayman account- it would be 10% USD, 10% Euro, 5% yen, 5 % Swiss franc etc. So users would be protected from inflation or collapse of any one fiat currency, but it would still be fiat, and still require trust in whoever is holding the bank account. It would be safer than a bank, but not as safe as a real crypto. Paycoin claims to be backed by dollars but I'm not sure how that is done, or what is going to happen to those dollars once US money transfer law enforcers take an interest in them.

[Longenecker]

What we have here boys, is a classic "Cup & Handle" pattern on the 2-month chart (bittrex).  Stay strong, HODL, and enjoy the ride.


DEFINITION OF 'CUP AND HANDLE'

A pattern on bar charts resembling a cup with a handle. The cup is in the shape of a "U" and the handle has a slight downward drift. The right-hand side of the pattern has low trading volume. It can be as short as seven weeks and as long as 65 weeks.

As the stock comes up to test the old highs, the stock will incur selling pressure by the people who bought at or near the old high. This selling pressure will make the stock price trade sideways with a tendency towards a downtrend for four days to four weeks... then it takes off. Below is an example of a cup and handle chart pattern:



A couple points on trying to detect cup and handles: Length - Generally, cups with longer and more "U" shaped bottoms, the stronger the signal. Avoid cups with a sharp "V" bottoms. Depth - Ideally, the cup should not be too deep. Also, avoid handles which are too deep since the handles should form in the top half of the cup pattern. Volume - Volume should dry up on the decline and remain lower than average in the base of the bowl. It should then increase when the stock finally starts to make its move back up to test the old high. Retest (of old high) - doesn't have touch or come within a few ticks of old high. However, the further the top of the handle is away from the highs, the more significant the breakout needs to be.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cupandhandle.asp

[skip60]

What we have here boys, is a classic "Cup & Handle" pattern on the 2-month chart (bittrex).  Stay strong, HODL, and enjoy the ride.

i find it really funny to use technical analysis at such an immature altcoin market with such a low volume

one small whale, can ruin the formation buy selling couple of btc worth shadow

before you, there was a guy who was counting A-B-C-D pattern for shadow, and told him the same...

then he stopped following TA, because he also saw it is nonsence i gues

[fenix79]

What we have here boys, is a classic "Cup & Handle" pattern on the 2-month chart (bittrex).  Stay strong, HODL, and enjoy the ride.

i find it really funny to use technical analysis at such an immature altcoin market with such a low volume

one small whale, can ruin the formation buy selling couple of btc worth shadow

before you, there was a guy who was counting A-B-C-D pattern for shadow, and told him the same...

then he stopped following TA, because he also saw it is nonsence i gues

I think you're talking about me, dashes agree with the last peak
29.11.2014


and another curiosity


Do not want to let you discuss, look at the charts and confirm facts

[moonchaser]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically. 
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

[Wheatclove]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically. 
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

Say you want to send 25 shadow to someone. Your wallet converts 50 sdc to shadow, sends them to multiple completely encrypted addresses. When the 25 shadow is redeemed by the receiver, the rest of the shadow is sent to one time use, encrypted change addresses that belong to you. Input and output values are obfuscated, sender and reciever addresses are unlinkable.

[Pline]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically. 
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

CoolStoryTeller posted a nice explanation earlier that might help.  Here it is: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit#slide=id.g577a31a2a_696

I think you have some good questions.  Wheatclove's answer sounds pretty good though.

[moonchaser]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically.  
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

Say you want to send 25 shadow to someone. Your wallet converts 50 sdc to shadow, sends them to multiple completely encrypted addresses. When the 25 shadow is redeemed by the receiver, the rest of the shadow is sent to one time use, encrypted change addresses that belong to you. Input and output values are obfuscated, sender and reciever addresses are unlinkable.

OK. Thanks for the answer. That clarifies it further more, but due to the same size conversion, the transaction can't be still traced ? Or because the output and input values are obfuscated that means the conversion size is obfuscated too...or not ?
Somewhere in the disclaimer says something like this ; "you have to find tokens of the same size in the chain"
PS. I'm not a tech guy...so excuse me if I'm asking dumb questions.
As I said before, I'm trading SDC not holding, and I do like the coin.

[moonchaser]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically. 
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

CoolStoryTeller posted a nice explanation earlier that might help.  Here it is: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit#slide=id.g577a31a2a_696

I think you have some good questions.  Wheatclove's answer sounds pretty good though.

Thanks man. That's a cool way to explain it. I'll take a look.

[Automatic Monkey]

So guys, I still struggle to see where the zk snarks and all the shit is implemented.
So, you have SDC. You turn that SDC into a token, then you send the token anonymously (exactly the way you would a cryptonote coin) to something, then you convert it back to SDC.
If you convert on one end and then convert on the other, then the conversion has to be the same size. So if someone looks at the size of the conversions then you have traced the transaction, meaning is traceable.
Moreover, one has to find tokens of the same size in the chain. Surely the wallet does that automatically. 
So from what I see, in order to make the transaction untraceable, one has decouple the conversions in time.
Conclusion : So what the sdc dev did, was to substitute ring signatures for zk-snarks in zero cash.
Can someone be kind and explain if I'm getting it wrong ?
And please spare me the usual SDC rocks BS...

Say you want to send 25 shadow to someone. Your wallet converts 50 sdc to shadow, sends them to multiple completely encrypted addresses. When the 25 shadow is redeemed by the receiver, the rest of the shadow is sent to one time use, encrypted change addresses that belong to you. Input and output values are obfuscated, sender and reciever addresses are unlinkable.

OK. Thanks for the answer. That clarifies it further more, but due to the same size conversion, the transaction can't be still traced ? Or because the output and input values are obfuscated that means the conversion size is obfuscated too...or not ?
Somewhere in the disclaimer says something like this ; "you have to find tokens of the same size in the chain"

I'm not a cryptographer, but the way I'm seeing it is that the reconversion takes place at the convenience of the receiver, not necessarily as a single transaction. If it happened as a single transaction that would provide plausible deniability (not good enough in countries that use beheadings) but not zero-knowledge.

So let's wait for a real cryptographer to tell us which it is.

[Pline]

I'm not a cryptographer, but the way I'm seeing it is that the reconversion takes place at the convenience of the receiver, not necessarily as a single transaction. If it happened as a single transaction that would provide plausible deniability (not good enough in countries that use beheadings) but not zero-knowledge.

So let's wait for a real cryptographer to tell us which it is.

I think you are right.  If you look on slide 7 here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g577a31a2a_3351


You will see that once Bob got the SDT, he could then send the SDT to carol without ever transferring the SDT back to SDC.  If true it would mean it would be much more private because you don't have to transfer the SDT back to SDC right away, you can send it around as well.  Seems pretty genius, but hopefully others can tell us better if this is truly how it works, because honestly I am still wrapping my head around it.  Afraid to try it out yet.

[LiteBit]

I'm not a cryptographer, but the way I'm seeing it is that the reconversion takes place at the convenience of the receiver, not necessarily as a single transaction. If it happened as a single transaction that would provide plausible deniability (not good enough in countries that use beheadings) but not zero-knowledge.

So let's wait for a real cryptographer to tell us which it is.

I think you are right.  If you look on slide 7 here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g577a31a2a_3351


You will see that once Bob got the SDT, he could then send the SDT to carol without ever transferring the SDT back to SDC.  If true it would mean it would be much more private because you don't have to transfer the SDT back to SDC right away, you can send it around as well.  Seems pretty genius, but hopefully others can tell us better if this is truly how it works, because honestly I am still wrapping my head around it.  Afraid to try it out yet.

Whys so scared? Try it within your own wallet, between addresses. You're your own mixing service now! And it's lightning fast (not a 24-48 hour wait like DarkSend running through the Masternode network.)

[Pline]

Whys so scared? Try it within your own wallet, between addresses. You're your own mixing service now! And it's lightning fast (not a 24-48 hour wait like DarkSend running through the Masternode network.)

Yeah I know, lol.  I plan to try it later but I was afraid of making a mistake losing some coins, so maybe need to make a fresh wallet.  I am still confused on how to account for Shadow compared to SDC in the wallet.  So once you convert to shadow, how do you know how much shadow you have and how do you select it to transfer back to SDC is what I have to figure out.

Edit: I guess for now you just remember what address you sent to and then use the coin control option?

[whocares]

Whys so scared? Try it within your own wallet, between addresses. You're your own mixing service now! And it's lightning fast (not a 24-48 hour wait like DarkSend running through the Masternode network.)

DS isn't that slow as you claim.
It should take few hours at worst if you use 8 rounds denom..

[ffmad]

Whys so scared? Try it within your own wallet, between addresses. You're your own mixing service now! And it's lightning fast (not a 24-48 hour wait like DarkSend running through the Masternode network.)

DS isn't that slow as you claim.
It should take few hours at worst if you use 8 rounds denom..

few hours compared to few minutes ? :/