Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash Uncensored: Zeuner, Zero Knowledge, Zero Trust. What Happened? - page 11. (Read 23487 times)

Lol no its not possible. I'll play CH's little game as soon as I get all my wallets running and synced up.

Is it a joke or is it really possible to deanonymize ShadowSend transactions?

Is it a joke or is it really possible to deanonymize ShadowSend transactions?

1.post an SDC>SDT tx and I'll guess the value sent looking at inputs/ouputs on chain. I got pretty good at it back in the day
2. Burn 200SDC for SDT and then burn the SDT for 200SDC and I'll tell you the address of the newly created SDC


From the roadmap and what the team said. Please link Ryno's comment, or the BitBay whitepaper

Could you post the donation addy please? TY

Donation campaign appears to be a success if anyone was interested. Ryno received well beyond the 10 BTC he needed to develop through November.

Thats not how CH behaves. He would rather kick up dust, screaming about bullshit than PM Ryno.

Mate i dont have to proof anything. I've talked with him weekly and it will happen. The roadmap is a bit outdated afaik. But can't blame them for that as software development is hard to schedule and deadlines are very hard to set in the world of development. Send a PM to him yourself and ask about it (in a friendly manner) and im sure he will update you on the current progress and explain about the escrow system. It really is that simple..

You will see for yourself in a few weeks that there will be smart escrow in place. If you have the patience.. (at this moment doesnt look like it)

1.post an SDC>SDT tx and I'll guess the value sent looking at inputs/ouputs on chain. I got pretty good at it back in the day
2. Burn 200SDC for SDT and then burn the SDT for 200SDC and I'll tell you the address of the newly created SDC


From the roadmap and what the team said. Please link Ryno's comment, or the BitBay whitepaper

Untested hybrid? Shadows network has been using ShadowSend2 for almost an entire year. There are bug bounties in place (some pretty high rewards) for any major and minor bugs. If you or anyone else can deanonymize ShadowSend, please do. You will be rewarded for your work by the Shadow team. Child_Harold/Wanderlust might also suck your dick as a bonus.

How long did it take for the CN clones to be deemed "tested" by your standard?

Have talken with Ryno and it will have decentralised escrow so i dont know where you get your stupidity from but certainly not from the correct sources.

NeosCoin put PGP messaging in the wallet, but I believe SDC is the only one with distributed messaging that obscures even that a message has been sent or received by a user.

   
Re: [ANN][SDC] ShadowCoin | PoS with PoW distribution | ShadowChat P2P EM System
August 02, 2014, 08:45:38 PM
   
 #537
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 , 2010



The 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?

A market whitepaper should have been delivered before the market coding. And even when a whitepaper for the market is released it'll be written as poorly as its predecessors: ShadowChat (BitMessage clone), ShadowSend (CN clone)

I posit that NOBODY will TRUST such technology, or at least nobody should.

The upcoming alpha will not include decentralized escrow and is non-functional. I hope you do not plan to pump such incomplete tech, as pretty as it might seem.

A basic understinh of algebra ...

Bottom line, no CrytoNote, no Shadow. If u want anon just use a CN coin and not this untested hybrid

If you have even a basic understanding of algebra you can compare the equations in the Traceable Ring Signature paper, the Proofs of Partial Knowledge and Simplified Design of Witness Hiding Protocols, the Cryptonote 2.0 paper and the ShadowSend 2.0 paper.

Having to rely on "experts" makes you vulnerable to bad actors. You've chosen not to attempt to understand anything. Start small. Everything in computer science is very small things put together to build something larger. It's like a big lego set but instead of different sized blocks of different colors, you put together different sized blocks of different letters.

The dual token is used because Shadow originated as a public token on a public blockchain. If you don't think adding ring signatures and a second token to an existing codebase for the first time is a large undertaking for 3 part time developers, you need to take a step back.

Bottom line, the algorithm used by CryptoNote was not cloned to Shadow. Ring signatures, zero knowledge proofs exist in both and the algorithms have certain similarities due to the nature of integrating such cryptography. The devs main goal is a complete private financial platform, not cryptography research.

I'm still waiting for your answer. WE demand answer! No, I DESERVE answer! Why won't you answer me? What are you hiding? Aaaaa big red flag! You're a scam, you know?

..sounds familiar? /s

How are we supposed to take you seriously when even you don't play by your rules?

OK, so by your logic – if it's not difficult to code, how can it be difficult to review without the docs?