Thank you, regards.
Seen the benchmarks in the wp? Not able to compare that with other projects?
I am not able to compare them. What does it mean? Is there anything for dummies?
Between are you looking for a code audit or the tech is already bulletproof against all possible attack vectors?
Once I heard on this forum that an anon off-chain solution is better than an on-chain one, is it true?
Maybe check out this slide presentation, I think it explains it well: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yX2jN618Rnzs4g2ri_utdKdHbny6-xnRcPhOuhLNGB0/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g577a31a2a_086
Hopefully we will have some respected people review the code. There are still some attack vectors if you don't take precautions with your amounts and timing. For example, you transfer 27.75664321 SDC to Shadow. Then 5 minutes later u turn the exact same amount less the fee back to SDC, its going to be pretty obvious. As for the crypto, there are probably some attack vectors if the ring sizes are too small and such things. I am not an expert, but Rynomster the lead dev should be coming back soon to help clarify our questions. He has been sick with the flu lately.
Also as for off-chain/on-chain solutions that depends on what your exact definitions of those things are. But taking it to mean one way, it could suggest that an off-chain solution is a centralized solution. This causes problems with trust. On-chain solutions have issues as well. I think coin-join solutions kind of fall short, and have too many attack vectors from a government adversary. Zero knowledge crypto is a much better solution in my opinon, and it should be done "on-chain" depending on your definition, and it should be done with zero trust as well. Some of the crypto has to be set up using a trust model, trusting on the people who set it up, but from what I understand Shadow is striving to eliminate that need for trust, and still have complete zero knowledge anonymity.