Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 429. (Read 1289714 times)

Thank god someone understands my logic.

You mean like if rhinos and ponies are the same 'cause they're both mammals + have 4 legs?



LOL, just havin some fun  

Rhyno's got this in the bag http://www.coinssource.com/vote/ no way he can lose 

Some quotes from Ryno to refresh your minds :

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.

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

hey everyone! did you know cars are really just the same as a horse and carriage because they both have wheels, i know crazy huh! just like SDC and Cryptonote are the same because they both have ring signatures..

@smooth

quote dasource:

So in other words you are saying SDC is basically the same as cryptonote once again, but claimed a few posts ago you never compared the two, your smart as shit, but lay off the drugs bro, you can't even remember what you said yesterday.

You may claim that is absurd, and yet, the cryptonote whitepaper references bitcoin extensively! They recognize that their system takes many ideas from Bitcoin and builds upon them. They likewise give credit in their white paper, and clearly explain what part of their work is new and what is based on bitcoin. In fact the entire first section of the cryptonote white paper explains this. Have you read it?

Can you clearly explain this (i.e. which parts -- specifically -- are original, and which are derivative) with respect to shadowsend? Because the shadowsend whitepaper doesn't.


That is nonsense, because stealth addresses plus ring signatures is exactly the method used by the anonymity functions of cryptonote, and cryptonote was the inventor of using these methods for a distributed cryptocurrency. Why is that so hard to understand?


False. Quoting from the Shadowsend whitepaper: "The blockchain is searched for the provided keyImage, if one is found the transaction is
considered a double­spend attempt and denied."

This works exactly the same.


The list is not endless.

As far as I can tell the list is:

1. Shadow transactions occur on a Bitcoin-style chain (transaction formats, etc.), wheres the cryptonote implementation has its own blockchain and transaction formats.

2. Shadow shares a blockchain with a non-anonymous coin SDC. Operations allow exchanging one for the other.

3. Some relatively minor implementation details of the Shadow anonymity scheme differ, such as the denominations used. Likewise, I read somewhere that Shadow uses a different elliptical curve for its elliptical curve cryptography, though I can't find that in the white paper.


Then why are you arguing about something you don't understand?

^^^ What he said

Firstly, my post on this thread was to clear the confusion amongst those who do not fully understand ShadowSend i.e. "ShadowCash a CryptoNote based currency" etc.. It is quite obvious this is coming from this thread and all the talk of CryptoNote and Shadow

Secondly, I am sorry but you are wrong. I very carefully choose my words and repeat ...


So lets address my two points

1. Shadow is not based on CryptoNote
Shadow is as much based on CryptoNote as CryptoNote is based on Bitcoin by your analogy. Surely because CryptoNote has a blockchain and uses PoW the CrytoNote developers based their entire technology on Bitcoin? That sounds as absurd as your statement saying Shadow is based on CryptoNote.

Yes there has been inspiration, just like the CrytoNote developers where inspired by Satoshis work; However Shadow is *NOT* based on CryptoNote. If it was (and I am sure it would have been much easier for the team) they would have just called this "ShadowSend a CryotoNote implementation on Bitcoin codebase".
There is in total 9 white papers referenced in the ShadowSend whitepaper. Today ring sigs are used and tomorrow it will be something entirely different as technology matures.

2. Shadow does not function like CrytoNote
This is the easiest to address, just because ShadowSend uses Stealth Addresses + Ring Sigs does not mean it functions like CryptoNote ...
For starters in Shadow you can move from SDC to SDT which uses a technique of minting similar to ZeroCoin. Shadow keyimages are reusable whereas in CryptoNote they are one-time if I recall correctly. The list is endless of how Shadow differs from CryptoNote.

ShadowSend is a unique implementation and should and will hold its own against the likes of CrytoNote/ZeroCash etc.

Lastly and most importantly coming back to the reason I originally posted; I really could care less about you did this first and you copied my style of x ... What is important to me is that those that are reading this thread over the past several dozen pages are getting confused with all this referencing of CryptoNote and Shadow hence why we are seeing confusing and misleading (I am not pointing fingers) statements.

All I am asking for is lets keep this sensible until we have clear hard facts and those far more intelligent that I have reviewed the full implementation. I know the team are working on some material to help understand this better.

Lastly Lastly, we are all here for the same purpose (I hope) .. lets support one another!
P.S. I am on the road so mind any typos/grammar!
P.S. This is my opinion and not that of the brains behind ShadowSend and I am sure they will chime their two shadowshi's worth.

I was (and am) curious about who Techovert is and what he might have done before.
Unfortunately (but fittingly) he remains a complete mystery and has made no appearances in IRC or BCT as far as I can tell.

SO you didn't say that SDC and Cryptonote was basically the same, you didn't say that?

Once again, look carefully at the quote you copied from above:


I was not the one that compared Shadow with cryptonote, Longenecker was. I responded to the innaccuracy in his post, just as I've responded to the many inaccuracies in yours.

see every single post hahaha you just can't type a sentance without cryptonote in it can you

My case is that every single one of your posts compares SDC to Cryptonote, and then you act like i brought up some random coin when i brought up bytecoin and that is a cryptonote coin, my case is your just a cryptonote troll and i'm done talking with you.

I'm not familar with this technovert. What else has he accomplished?

Assuming your developer is not a cryptographer and employed the assistance of one, that speaks well of him. There are certainly aspects of shadowsenc that are different from cryptonote (such as the way it integrates with the non-anonymous SDC), and any changes or differences in context should be reviewed by a cryptographer, yes.

bump (already!)

What case?

I was quoted, and then someone claimed that "cryptonote simply obfuscates the outputs, whereas Shadow destroys them" which is complete and utter nonsense. The subsequent discussion explained how minting and redeeming has nothing to do with anonymity and in fact could impair it under some conditions.

Everyone reading it except you seemed to get the point. Open your mind a bit, some good info might find its way in there.

rest my case, just a broken record, don't talk about cryptonote if you don't want me to bring up bytecoin the original cryptonote coin.

Here is my first post ever to you, you were comparing SDC to cryptonote, and i brought up bytecoin the first cryptonote coin, every single one of your posts has been the same.