Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 22. (Read 1289644 times)

Spectrecoin will fix the flaws in SDC:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xspec-spectrecoin-untraceable-tx-ring-signatures-tor-integration-1704473

Come and meet us at our Slack channel: https://slack.spectreproject.io/

Why pay through your teeth for SDC when you can pay a fraction for a better coin

I know you are the 'source' but your people @kewde used the word 'broken' and not 'disabled'. Come off your high horse and admit that you do not know everything. SPEC has done what nobody else has done and cloned your code and they are about to make it better and you are just pissed off...

And I just told you the reason. When we upgraded to PoSv3 we decided that there was a much better way to have "thin mode" nodes inline with our future design plans and thus it will not be upgraded as part of PoSv3 but instead later.

I have followed this discussion and wanted to add that one of your own @kewde stated when I spoke to him about the code, that the 'thin' mode in SDC was broken:

I also figured it was obvious because he has almost no posting history, and as expected he left a "lonk" to menero and reference to peyment id. 

This is exactly what I expect when they start to see the writing on the wall so to speak. The long wait for SDC's massive success/acceptance are going to make it all that much sweeter.

Maybe we should discuss the GUI next?   

Let me correct you. The "thin" mode in Umbra has been disabled due to upgrade to PoSv3 ... It was not a priority and thus will be redesigned inline with PoSv3 in the coming months.

You would imagine it would be obvious since the technology is known as "Dual [key] Stealth Addresses" .. i.e. dual simply referring to the pairs of spend and view/scan keys.

You didn't answer the question though. How do you prove that you sent X SDC to stealth address: smY.....................xx if the intended recipient denies having received the payment. There is no trace of the stealth address in the block explorer to refer back to and not in your wallet transactions either. This is a genuine question. Is this why exchanges like Poloniex only uses 'normal' deposit addresses for SDC and not stealth? Because if there was a dispute you can't prove the transactions as it's unlinked. That is the point isn't it? So, with XMR there is a key that can be used / payment ID that can be shared for the purpose of audit so that a dispute can be settled between the seller / buyer.

https://imgur.com/gQlj9Oy

It's not FUD but a genuine question. How do you prove that you sent to a certain stealth address? I suggest that you can't prove it, hence the exchanges uses 'normal' addresses and so you will need to use 'normal' addresses for trade as well for transparency as there is no audit system with a peyment ID as is the case with XMR.

So, the trust-less system isn't trust-less after all if you use stealth addresses, you will need to trust the recipient not to lie and say he didn't receive the payment.

Huh regret always comes too late when they said the SDC would fall down I immediately sold at prices 130k sat and get ready to wait at low prices
The day after I sold all SDC rate rose to 180k I will not repeat it again 

All need a process, XMR also through the hard and fight little by little and now XMR got a result so is the SDC will exceed XMR if everything goes smoothly, I am very confident that 

IMO XMR has large market cap already, but SDC is undervalued if anon coins will go bigger.

For most of us SDC's success was never in question. Only a matter of when things would get really truly get exciting.

I can say with confidence that time is almost here. Those who took the wait and see approach will be scrambling.

Interestingly, at least this a success.

Wish I had an SDC for every clueless newbie that bothered to post nonsense on this forum. But as I have said many times, it never fails that the losers show up just before the price spikes. 

Thanks man!

Shadowcoin   1.7656 USD   11,686,000 USD   6,618,700   74,136 USD   + 28.19 %

The 'thin' wallet of SDC doesn't work.

Also, I have an interesting point. Let's say you want to pay someone for something and he provides a SDC stealth address. You then copy and paste the stealth address into your wallet and you pay, say 100 SDC for something using this stealth address. The stealth address generates a normal address to send to and the sender address also appears as a normal address. The actual stealth address you used is not recorded in the blockchain and it is not recorded in your wallets transaction history and it's not recorded anywhere. This is all well and good. Let's say that the seller says (maybe maliciously) "I never received the payment from you, you must have entered the wrong stealth address". You quietly panic and try to find proof of the transaction. It seems that you can not prove that you made a payment to a certain stealth address. The payment you made with the stealth address is not recorded anywhere, not in the blockchain and not in your wallet and there is no way for you to prove the payment like with, say, Bitcoin. All that appears are two newly generated normal addresses and there is no way to correlate the normal address to the stealth address you sent to. You have two options, send the payment again or loose your SDC and walk away.

Has this been run through google translate or am I talking to a bot?

Your point is to try and attack one of the most beautifully crafted cryto GUI available?

Please post pictures of the Umbra wallet and give us your critique

Whether its thin or tight, it would not run. Could the thinness of SDC wallet change the fact that substandard quality of gui interface poses a treat to stability of SDC price. If u stay here any longer u will get fed with UMBRA hype and involuntarily coerced into buying of this shit on the open market which u cant feel happy with.

How do I run the wallet in lite mode?

I checked the box "thin mode" under the options tab, then I restarted the wallet. This didn't work though, and now the wallet is stuck syncing at 0% and no transactions are coming in.

I'm biased because I don't know enough about Monero to really compare them fully.


This graphic compares a lot of the features of SDC, Monero, Zcash

   (came out before zcash was released)


I think mass adoption for shadowcash will come whenever the market is released, which will hopefully be this quarter

https://doc.shadowproject.io/#shadowmarket
https://decentralize.today/happy-january-a97e7e15fab5#.4envi2b6r (claims market to be demo'd this month)
https://blog.shadowproject.io/2016/09/06/sept-2016-welcome-to-the-umbra/  (claims market 80% compete in september 2016)
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-race-for-the-first-decentralised-silk-road-is-on



I think Monero is good for anonymity but without a suitable platform to use it I think the technology will be wasted.

Monero has been accepted by some on DarkNetMarkets but there have already been exit scams so the coins were stolen

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-loses-darknet-market-in-apparent-exit-scam

Shadowcash's Umbra marketplace won't have a centralised team that can run off at will.  It will be completely anonymous and decentralised, the very first of its kind.  Funds are protected with two party smart escrow https://doc.shadowproject.io/#two-party-smart-escrow so rogue sellers can't steal your funds.

dev good dev

big brain super moon

crypto lock coin no find id

trade wallet come soon