Of course dudes.
another funny note, shadowcoin message "whitepaper pdf" has the following footnotes:
4. References
[1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml 1948
[2] S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer‐to‐Peer Electronic Cash System,” http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf,
2008[3] J. Warren “Bitmessage: A Peer‐to‐Peer Message Authentication and Delivery System“
http://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf, 2012
<-- Thats the whitepaper they copied from[4] A. Harris, “Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say,”
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abIV0cO64zJE , 2006[5] E. Mills, “Fraudulent Google certificate points to Internet attack,” http://news.cnet.com/8301‐
27080_3‐20098894‐245/fraudulent‐google‐certificate‐points‐to‐internet‐attack/ , 2011[6] J. Bamford, “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say),”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 , 2012[7] “Now We Know What the Battle Was About,” http://www.newsweek.com/id/174602 , 2008[8] E. Lichtblau, J. Risen, “Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html , 2009[9] H. Adkins, “An update on attempted man‐in‐the‐middle attacks,”
http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/08/update‐on‐attempted‐man‐in‐middle.html,
2011[10] P. Eckersley, J. Burns, “An Observatory for the SSLiverse,”
https://www.eff.org/files/DefconSSLiverse.pdf , 2010The Bitmessage Whitepaper has:
https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf References
[1] “Now We Know What the Battle Was About,” http://www.newsweek.com/id/174602 , 2008 [2] A. Harris, “Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say,”
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abIV0cO64zJE , 2006 [3] J. Bamford, “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say),”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 , 2012 [4] E. Lichtblau, J. Risen, “Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html , 2009 [5] E. Mills, “Fraudulent Google certificate points to Internet attack,” http://news.cnet.com/8301‐
27080_3‐20098894‐245/fraudulent‐google‐certificate‐points‐to‐internet‐attack/ , 2011 [6] H. Adkins, “An update on attempted man‐in‐the‐middle attacks,”
http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/08/update‐on‐attempted‐man‐in‐middle.html ,
2011 [7] P. Eckersley, J. Burns, “An Observatory for the SSLiverse,”
https://www.eff.org/files/DefconSSLiverse.pdf , 2010 [8] S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer‐to‐Peer Electronic Cash System,” http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf ,
2008 * Bold are the references who are the same in both Papers, where of course only the Bitmessage whitepaper is to be considered a real whitepaper.
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Second, you basically added a preample (We shadowcoin team believe in human rights blabla) and then reworded the Bitmessage whitepaper letting out all interesting stuff?
So, you cloned Bitmessage basically? Whats the point?
Funny you should play proofreader now, but honestly I don't see anything wrong with building on top of what's been established, developing it further with new additions that are both substantial and innovative, and creating a new coin based off of hard work and labor. From what I read, most white papers including this one contain very similar language and templates due to the fact that - They are all crypto currency. No surprises there.
Maybe you can go proofread all the other 'whitepapers' and tell me this one is any worse. For a crypto community managed project, this one definitely stands at the top.
I personally find the dev dedication, product quality, and community acceptance of new development a refreshing change from the collection of garbage coins in the past 2 months. This coin offers a real deal and a step in the right direction.
If the best you can do for trying to mess with a coin is moaning about references in the paper, you should know you are playing on the back foot here.
There's no need for misdirected fud for this coin. Dev did not over promise or over hype - this coin just punches out results after results.
So far I've only seen weak attempts at fud cherry picking facts to make things sound worse then they really are. Not only that, the dev answered each and everyone categorically and precisely.
I support this coin full heartedly.
