Topic: DRK vs XMR warez - page 6. (Read 13362 times)

oh come on... you know what i meant!
to be more specific: is there any anon-specific tech that darkwallet could not adopt?

The instamine, or did we cover that earlier in this thread? It is hard to remember what was discussed before the shadow invasion.

Well as we are all back to topic: is there anything DarkWallet can not adopt from DRK?

I think they can adopt the Masternode concept, maybe except the 80% blockreward they will get in the future.

Well all I did was continue a conversation, and make statements saying, what it "seems" like and providing evidence.  I am very happy for you to correct me if I am wrong.  How else is someone suppose to find the truth?  I was basically asking questions about the similarities that I saw.  Personally I don't believe asking questions or having a conversation is spam, and calling it that is rather rude and insulting imo.  Personally I think you are a little biased in your opinion(and possibly threatened) since you are so personally invested in Monero (and I don't mean financially invested, I mean investing your time and energy).  So it will be nice when a 3rd party review comes out.  Again we have common goals of privacy and anonymity, and a little respect goes a long way.  Being rude has a ripple effect and then trolls come out from the woodwork and it causes a flame war.  We are all more professional than that.

Well all I did was continue a conversation, and make statements saying, what it "seems" like and providing evidence.  I am very happy for you to correct me if I am wrong.  How else is someone suppose to find the truth?  I was basically asking questions about the similarities that I saw.  Personally I don't believe asking questions or having a conversation is spam, and calling it that is rather rude and insulting imo.  Personally I think you are a little biased in your opinion(and possibly threatened) since you are so personally invested in Monero (and I don't mean financially invested, I mean investing your time and energy).  So it will be nice when a 3rd party review comes out.  Again we have common goals or privacy and anonymity, and a little respect goes a long way.  Being rude has a ripple effect and then trolls come out from the woodwork and it causes a flame war.  We are all more professional than that.

Again I'm going to explain it to you. It is up to you if you wish to learn or continue to spam the drivel.

The NIZKP in the SDC whitepaper has nothing to do with "minting" and is just a regular part of the construction used to create cryptonote signitures. Yes this is described in sections 3 and 4 (mostly 4) of the SDC white paper, just as it is likewise described in section 4.4 of the cryptonote white paper. The more puzzling question is why the SDC white paper never cites the cryptonote white paper in the section where it uses the same cryptographic constructions, instead of merely listing a non-specific reference to cryptonote at the end. A careless oversight perhaps. You will have to ask the author, though.

No one is being a jerk here, I'm responding to inaccuracies in your spam, that is all.

Seems this is very similar to ShadowCash minting scheme and double spend protection as described in section 3 and 4 of the Shadow whitepaper: http://shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcash-anon.pdf

No, that is not only not "established", it is not even true. The only thing that is "taken" from zerocoin is the vague concept of converting between btc and another coin type. How it is done and what the other coin type is and how it works, including the minting process itself, is totally different.

Just look in the SDC whitepaper man, there is no footnote that cites zerocoin with reference to any of the cryptography whatsoever, only with the general concept of converting from btc to another token. That is the only connection. If you think that by itself is a big deal then sure go ahead and keep bringing it up like the other SDC pumpers do. You (and they) probably will regardless.

Intuition behind our construction. To understand the intuition behind Zerocoin, consider the following “pencil and paper” protocol example. Imagine that all users share access to a physical bulletin board. To mint a zerocoin of fixed denomination $1, a user Alice first generates a random coin serial number S , then commits to S using a secure digital commitment scheme. The resulting commitment is a coin, denoted C , which can only be opened by a random number r to reveal the serial number S. Alice pins C to the public bulletin board, along with $1 of physical currency. All users will accept C provided it is correctly structured and carries the correct sum of currency.

To redeem her coin C, Alice first scans the bulletin board to obtain the set of valid commitments (C₁ ;:::;C_N) that have thus far been posted by all users in the system. She next produces a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof # for the following two statements: (1) she knows a C2 (C₁;:::;C_N) and (2) she knows a hidden value r such that the commitment C opens to S. In full view of the others, Alice, using a disguise to hide her identity, 1 posts a “spend” transaction containing (S;#). The remaining users verify the proof # and check that S has not previously appeared in any other spend transaction. If these conditions are met, the users allow Alice to collect $1 from any location on the bulletin board; otherwise they reject her transaction and prevent her from collecting the currency.

 This simple protocol achieves some important aims. First, Alice’s minted coin cannot be linked to her retrieved funds:in order to link the coin C to the the serial number S used in her withdrawal, one must either know r or directly know which coin Alice proved knowledge of, neither of which are revealed by the proof. Thus, even if the original dollar bill is recognizably tainted (e.g., it was used in a controversial transaction), it cannot be linked to Alice’s new dollar bill. At the same time, if the commitment and zero-knowledge proof are secure, then Alice cannot double-spend any coin without re-using the serial number S and thus being detected by the network participants

You're going to have to wait a long damn time (forever), because what I wrote is absolutely correct.

Stop spamming your SDC "zero knowledge" drivel on threads about other coins please.

You muthers cannot control the flow of information here as well as can can on Poloniex (XMR) and Cryptsy (DRK)

I cannot f\ing wait for you to get burned by ur own words

The people have a right to know a better option exists.
This is a "public forum" yes?
And people can quote eachother, YES??
U dig?

then make your own thread - this thread is about XMR and DRK.

Example of the kind of pumpers'  drivel being spammed on a non-SDC thread I was describing earlier ^^

harold, I'm going to explain it to you like a child:

The "NIZKP" part of Shadow is just a tiny part of the cryptonote signature scheme that was reimplemented by SDC, nothing more, nothing less.

[Shadow has every right to be in this convo, with or without your impotent consent. On a tech basis alone it blows DRK and XMR out the water.

child_harold. No one Cares about the Shitcoin Shadowcash. The only popular anoncoins are Monero and Darkcoin.

Again, No.One.Cares.About.Shadowcash. The title of this thread is DRK vs XMR. No where does it say SDC. ffs.

What was this thread about again?

• Pumping Shadow?
• Discussing pro's and con's to two different technological approaches to achieving anonymity?

Waiting for the Navajo coin pumpers to come say hi.