Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 365. (Read 1289714 times)

Quote from: 00Smurf on March 10, 2015, 06:09:06 AM

is it just me or does the topic title say ShadowDash instead of cash lmao

lol, who did that

lol, no the real rebrand is changing shadow over to Darkcash. lol

For real? I bought some SDC tonight as the Darkcoin to Dash rebrand might get some people to abandon ship. Is this Shadowdash now? People are fucking with me I think? Darkcash was a Carsen coin, but a good name.

ffmad

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

Quote from: rustynailer on March 10, 2015, 06:06:45 AM

is it just me or does the topic title say ShadowDash instead of cash lmao

lol, who did that

lol, no the real rebrand is changing shadow over to Darkcash. lol

or DarkCrash ?

child_harold

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Now here is the bashing part: cryptonote ring signatures cause a lot of blockchain bloat. The SDC implementation compounds this problem with the clunkiness of a zero-coin type token system. It's a great proof-of-concept, but in my opinion, it's not going to be practical. I could be wrong. Time will tell if it gets adopted, used, and is maintainable.

I posted a set of questions regarding possible "bloat".
iirc they have done something clever about this.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10721642

XMR/Monero uses very small ring sizes (default 3) to shadow (default 16!) because of "bloat". The question is have the dev team found a way to minimize bloat?
Awaiting a reply.

00Smurf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: rustynailer on March 10, 2015, 06:06:45 AM

I'm legit interested in this project, just do something cool and I'm here. I love proof of stake (definitely an improvement over proof of work in theory) and i love cryptonote. What do you guys have to prove that you are making advances in the space of bringing proof of stake to cyrptonote. I see a lot of promises and very little in the way of concrete advancement. Sorry for not doing exhaustive research, there are so many people promising so many things everywhere that i could never research all of the claims. A distillation in this respect would be greatly appreciated.

I'm usually here lurking and looking for ways to bash this coin, but to answer your question and to be fair, the devs have already done it to an extent.

They have put one part of cryptonote on top of the PoS SDC blockchain. The difference from a true cryptonote+PoS hybrid is that the cryptonote layer runs on top of the PoS block chain much like zerocoin would run on top of bitcoin. Here they substitute cryptonote-type ring signatures for the zkSNARKs of zerocoin. It's a good idea, actually, from a purely theoretical perspective.

Now here is the bashing part: cryptonote ring signatures cause a lot of blockchain bloat. The SDC implementation compounds this problem with the clunkiness of a zero-coin type token system. It's a great proof-of-concept, but in my opinion, it's not going to be practical. I could be wrong. Time will tell if it gets adopted, used, and is maintainable.

Appreciate the acknowledgement, eventually you might buy some sdc.

00Smurf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

is it just me or does the topic title say ShadowDash instead of cash lmao

lol, who did that

lol, no the real rebrand is changing shadow over to Darkcash. lol

rustynailer

hero member

Activity: 725

Merit: 501

Boycott Qatar 2022

is it just me or does the topic title say ShadowDash instead of cash lmao

lol, who did that

SebSebastian

sr. member

Activity: 286

Merit: 250

Guess since we're all renaming things to Dash I'll be MrDashKing

Just remember to consult your community first! Cheesy

ffmad

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

Quote from: Automatic Monkey on March 10, 2015, 03:01:07 AM

is it just me or does the topic title say ShadowDash instead of cash lmao

I don't see what you're talking about Cool

I don't think we would make fun of a ~~stupid~~ rename Roll Eyes

SebSebastian

sr. member

Activity: 286

Merit: 250

I'm legit interested in this project, just do something cool and I'm here. I love proof of stake (definitely an improvement over proof of work in theory) and i love cryptonote. What do you guys have to prove that you are making advances in the space of bringing proof of stake to cyrptonote. I see a lot of promises and very little in the way of concrete advancement. Sorry for not doing exhaustive research, there are so many people promising so many things everywhere that i could never research all of the claims. A distillation in this respect would be greatly appreciated.

I'm usually here lurking and looking for ways to bash this coin, but to answer your question and to be fair, the devs have already done it to an extent.

They have put one part of cryptonote on top of the PoS SDC blockchain. The difference from a true cryptonote+PoS hybrid is that the cryptonote layer runs on top of the PoS block chain much like zerocoin would run on top of bitcoin. Here they substitute cryptonote-type ring signatures for the zkSNARKs of zerocoin. It's a good idea, actually, from a purely theoretical perspective.

Now here is the bashing part: cryptonote ring signatures cause a lot of blockchain bloat. The SDC implementation compounds this problem with the clunkiness of a zero-coin type token system. It's a great proof-of-concept, but in my opinion, it's not going to be practical. I could be wrong. Time will tell if it gets adopted, used, and is maintainable.

Good point. Every coin will eventually face blockchain bloat. It already takes the better part of a week to load a full BTC wallet, I can't even imagine what it will be like as use increases.

The solution at least for the medium term might be just light wallets being the default, with the full nodes being run by l33t users who are willing to devote a few large hard drives to the blockchain. How that will work with ZK privacy and a PoS coin I'm not sure, there are probably several ways it can work. It might detract from the privacy in some ways, and enhance it in others.

For the long term it will probably require truncating the blockchain so that the full ledger from day 1 is no longer necessary. But that's a crypto-wide problem, guarantee you some other coin will have to figure out how to do that before SDC does.

I think Boolberry already does some kind of blockchain pruning, but I'm not sure how it works or if it'd be easy to implement something like that here. There'll probably be a solution before it becomes a real problem though (think ryno has some ideas about how to tackle it).

ffmad

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

I'm legit interested in this project, just do something cool and I'm here. I love proof of stake (definitely an improvement over proof of work in theory) and i love cryptonote. What do you guys have to prove that you are making advances in the space of bringing proof of stake to cyrptonote. I see a lot of promises and very little in the way of concrete advancement. Sorry for not doing exhaustive research, there are so many people promising so many things everywhere that i could never research all of the claims. A distillation in this respect would be greatly appreciated.

I would say the opposite : "ShadowCash advances in bringing cryptonote tech to Proof of Stake"

ShadowCash has already a working anon with a (really) good wallet, and soon Mobile applications (they are being upgraded to be used with anon)

I don't think there is any other anon coin with a mobile wallet, it will be a first

Automatic Monkey

hero member

Activity: 503

Merit: 500

Quote from: child_harold on March 07, 2015, 09:00:52 AM

I'm legit interested in this project, just do something cool and I'm here. I love proof of stake (definitely an improvement over proof of work in theory) and i love cryptonote. What do you guys have to prove that you are making advances in the space of bringing proof of stake to cyrptonote. I see a lot of promises and very little in the way of concrete advancement. Sorry for not doing exhaustive research, there are so many people promising so many things everywhere that i could never research all of the claims. A distillation in this respect would be greatly appreciated.

I'm usually here lurking and looking for ways to bash this coin, but to answer your question and to be fair, the devs have already done it to an extent.

They have put one part of cryptonote on top of the PoS SDC blockchain. The difference from a true cryptonote+PoS hybrid is that the cryptonote layer runs on top of the PoS block chain much like zerocoin would run on top of bitcoin. Here they substitute cryptonote-type ring signatures for the zkSNARKs of zerocoin. It's a good idea, actually, from a purely theoretical perspective.

Now here is the bashing part: cryptonote ring signatures cause a lot of blockchain bloat. The SDC implementation compounds this problem with the clunkiness of a zero-coin type token system. It's a great proof-of-concept, but in my opinion, it's not going to be practical. I could be wrong. Time will tell if it gets adopted, used, and is maintainable.

Good point. Every coin will eventually face blockchain bloat. It already takes the better part of a week to load a full BTC wallet, I can't even imagine what it will be like as use increases.

The solution at least for the medium term might be just light wallets being the default, with the full nodes being run by l33t users who are willing to devote a few large hard drives to the blockchain. How that will work with ZK privacy and a PoS coin I'm not sure, there are probably several ways it can work. It might detract from the privacy in some ways, and enhance it in others.

For the long term it will probably require truncating the blockchain so that the full ledger from day 1 is no longer necessary. But that's a crypto-wide problem, guarantee you some other coin will have to figure out how to do that before SDC does.

child_harold

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: child_harold on March 07, 2015, 04:06:07 AM

Technical Question - Ring Sizes

The Shadow wallet has a "Suggest Ring Size" button I usually hit before sending SDT>SDT or SDT>SDC
The default number before clicking the button is 16 rings. After clicking the button the number can go up to 60 rings in my experience, altho 24 is more common. Values less than 16 can sometimes be "suggested" although ive never sent with anything under 12. TX fees remain low at around 0.005 to 0.01.

In Monero they typically use a MIXIN of 3 which is the equivalent to only 3 rings!

Whilst I feel proud we have so many more rings I wonder if there is a law of diminishing returns regarding ringsize/potential bloat. The comment from the person I dialogued with came through as:

Quote

SDC developers seem more inclined to bloat up their blockchain by defaulting to massive (imo unnecessarily so) ring signatures.

He then pointed me to our own WP:

Since the above numbers are pretty meaningless to me maybe a dev can clarify the following:

1) Do we risk bloating up the blockchain using high ringsize values?
2) Is there a diminishing return for ringsizes? (in terms of anonymity/bloat ratio)
3) How does "Suggest Ring Size" choose?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?

EDIT:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty?

thanks

bump since answers/discussion for 4+5 (thx smooth) moved the thread pretty quick. Below is the fillet:

Quote from: smooth on March 07, 2015, 05:34:36 AM

Quote from: child_harold on March 07, 2015, 04:33:38 AM

Quote from: smooth on March 07, 2015, 04:14:16 AM

Quote from: child_harold on March 07, 2015, 04:06:07 AM

4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?

This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.

On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.

Updated my post above with an additional q if u wanna have a stab at it:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty (assuming cracking is even the word here)?

Its very hard to quantify that in a purely objective way. 16 means there are 16 possible senders for the transaction and cryptographically it is impossible to tell them apart. 3 means there are 3 possible senders, again impossible tell which is the real one. But bear in mind these are not senders as in "people" they are "senders" in terms of stealth addresses on the blockchain. You can't in general link any of those to an actual person or address, even if you have transacted with the same person in the past (or do so in the future). So being ambiguous between 3 different unlinkable addresses on a generally opaque blockchain is already quite good.

Obviously ambiguity of 16 is "better" than ambiguity of 3, but is it "better" enough to justify for the larger use of blockchain space? Very hard to say. It seems the huge gains come from going from 0 (not untraceable at all) or 1 (quite problematic) to 2 (minimum acceptable), 3 (getting better), etc. Beyond that the gains are smaller while space used continues to increase.

BUMP.

I really think a Dev Team member should address these questions.
Thank you.

Pline

full member

Activity: 448

Merit: 100

Quote from: rynomster on December 20, 2014, 09:43:17 PM

I'm legit interested in this project, just do something cool and I'm here. I love proof of stake (definitely an improvement over proof of work in theory) and i love cryptonote. What do you guys have to prove that you are making advances in the space of bringing proof of stake to cyrptonote. I see a lot of promises and very little in the way of concrete advancement. Sorry for not doing exhaustive research, there are so many people promising so many things everywhere that i could never research all of the claims. A distillation in this respect would be greatly appreciated.

I'm usually here lurking and looking for ways to bash this coin, but to answer your question and to be fair, the devs have already done it to an extent.

They have put one part of cryptonote on top of the PoS SDC blockchain. The difference from a true cryptonote+PoS hybrid is that the cryptonote layer runs on top of the PoS block chain much like zerocoin would run on top of bitcoin. Here they substitute cryptonote-type ring signatures for the zkSNARKs of zerocoin. It's a good idea, actually, from a purely theoretical perspective.

Now here is the bashing part: cryptonote ring signatures cause a lot of blockchain bloat. The SDC implementation compounds this problem with the clunkiness of a zero-coin type token system. It's a great proof-of-concept, but in my opinion, it's not going to be practical. I could be wrong. Time will tell if it gets adopted, used, and is maintainable.

For what its worth, it seems like the plan is to slot in SNARKs in the future once they are fully ready and trustless. The lead dev rynomster said the reason they used anonymous tokens instead of direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs is because they are building toward that direction. Quote here:

Quote

Unfortunately I can't get to in Monero Research Lab's MRL-0001 research bulletin, but I am certainly looking forward to reading it

Our scheme was never going to be perfect, and we have said on a few occasions that we will only be utilising a basic nizkp until zk-snarks is fully out and trustless.

I have also told people that I'm not an academic, nor a grad student.. Just your average Joe, who dropped out of school, and wants to help move things along

If this was about money, we definitely would not work as we do on a single project, and we definitely would not have open sourced on our first opportunity to do so..

The reason we opted for anonymous tokens, instead of direct anonymous outputs to ringsigs, is because we're building towards direction we're heading in. What we're striving for... Encrypted values, with perfect nizkps, proving all values of inputs are real, without revealing any information about where they come from.

We're looking at many things, like homomorphic encryption, snarks, etc...
http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/976
snarks are advancing, along with many other ideas... We are not for limiting ourselves, but for bettering our [collective] future

tx42

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500