Dude, I'm not sure why you are obsessed with Monero and Bytecoin. That ship sailed a long time ago. But the point is that the true credit for the cryptography used by all of these coins lies with the developers of the cryptonote design, whoever they are.
Monero has rewritten significant parts of the Bytecoin code from scratch by now, and extensively refactored other parts, and will likely do far more of this. Monero does not, however, claim to be the inventor of the cryptonote design, or the original writer of the code. We always credit cryptonote for their work. Credit where credit is due.
Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 439. (Read 1289636 times)
I don't see Bytecoin like a scam but a test
Well, you have know the history of how it was claimed to be launched two years earlier, which was simply a lie, and many of the premined coins were being dumped on unsuspecting buyers. That makes a fraud and a scam.
But ultimately you are right, it was essentially the testnet for Monero, and that's how any project run by non-scammers would have done it.
BTW, Monero never claimed to be anything new (though new things have been since added), it was launched as a direct of clone bytecoin (cryptonote) to get rid of the 82% premine. The rest of the technology was (and is) just fine.
You can talk about technology without talking about XMR why not talk about bytecoin same difference 
1. Why would one talk about a scam with an 82% premine that is now largely abandoned. It matters for historical purposes only.
2. I'm less familiar with what the Bytecoin project is doing these days, if anything at all.
3. By all accounts (even the scammers, who I tend not to believe anyway) the true innovators here were "cryptonote", who invented the cryptographic scheme.
4. People seem to be asking about the similarities and differences between SDC and Monero. No one is asking about Bytecoin (see #1 above).
What is the deal with shadow to shadow transfers? Are they linkable on the blockchain? I think possibly one of the main benefits of the Shadow scheme for anonymity is not just the crypto stuff(although that's the foundation), but the fact that you don't have to change shadow back to SDC at any particular time. Is this what makes it different from Monero? Kind of seems like the blockchain and the SDC act kind of like an anchor for the shadow (SDT) to exist and be able to be spent and transferred. Any insight? I'm still trying to fully understand.
Shadow to Shadow transfers are just like Monero. They are not linkable or traceable. What makes this different from Monero is that it has both types of coins on the same chain.
SDC (and therefore transfers between Shadow and SDC) serves two purposes as far as I can tell:
1. It existed first, so it continues to be supported for backward compatibility
2. Transactions are smaller and faster, so there is an efficiency gain when anonymity isn't needed
Thanks that makes sense. But I still wonder if having both the SDC/SDT existing has any additional purposes to those you listed. It kind of seems like having both may increase the anonymity in some ways along with other possible benefits, but I am still trying to think it through more thoroughly. But hopefully someone else can comment if this is so or not.
I don't see Bytecoin like a scam but a test
Well, you have know the history of how it was claimed to be launched two years earlier, which was simply a lie, and many of the premined coins were being dumped on unsuspecting buyers. That makes a fraud and a scam.
But ultimately you are right, it was essentially the testnet for Monero, and that's how any project run by non-scammers would have done it.
(sorry for the off topic discussion guys -- let's get back to the correct topic shall we?)
I don't see Bytecoin like a scam but a test
BTW, Monero never claimed to be anything new (though new things have been since added), it was launched as a direct of clone bytecoin (cryptonote) to get rid of the 82% premine. The rest of the technology was (and is) just fine.
You can talk about technology without talking about XMR why not talk about bytecoin same difference 1. Why would one talk about a scam with an 82% premine that is now largely abandoned. It matters for historical purposes only.
2. I'm less familiar with what the Bytecoin project is doing these days, if anything at all.
3. By all accounts (even the scammers, who I tend not to believe anyway) the true innovators here were "cryptonote", who invented the cryptographic scheme.
4. People seem to be asking about the similarities and differences between SDC and Monero. No one is asking about Bytecoin (see #1 above).
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
Doesn't the anonymity come from the use of ring signatures? It's just that both Cryptonote and ShadowCash use similar simplified applications of them? And that Cryptonote did it first? That's an important thing to clarify and will help with discussion.
What you are calling anonymity comes from ring signitures (untracability) and stealth addresses (unlinkability).
Cryptonote (an anonymous unknown entity) first applied both of these methods in a coherent cryptocurrency system, and deserves credit for the synthesis much the same way Satoshi deserves credit for synthesizing the ideas that went into bitcoin. SDC is using essentially the same construction as cryptonote for the anonymous coin type (Shadow tokens or whatever they are called).
Thanks for clarifying that to me. That makes sense with how tracing and linking is hidden... ring sigs -> (un)trace & stealth addresses -> (un)link.
Yes ShadowCash uses both, the Shadow token can only be used with stealth addresses (thus the untraceable and unlink-able transaction). And you are right, if Cryptonote first combined this logic into a crypto system then yes, give credit where credit is due.
I think it's important for everyone to see this is how vetting and improvements happen in the real world. You don't see any Bitcoin purists coming into this topic saying, "ShadowCash uses a blockchain? Satoshi invented that, you're just a clone of Bitcoin..." We all give credit to SN for figuring out the public ledger, solving double spend, etc. If CN first applied ring sigs & stealth addresses in it's system then we need to acknowledge that. That's what Shadow is doing too. Now, the SDC devs have innovated that idea with implementation of Shadow tokens, but the original working system (just like the blockchain system, we too are using) is another project's innovation.
This should also clarify to everyone why the XMR supporters are saying it's a clone of Cryptonote. See where they get that from? Since April 2014 they've been doing it. Bitcoin supporters would be saying the same thing if it wasn't a complete waste of time to write the sentence on the BITCOIN Talk forum.
What is the deal with shadow to shadow transfers? Are they linkable on the blockchain? I think possibly one of the main benefits of the Shadow scheme for anonymity is not just the crypto stuff(although that's the foundation), but the fact that you don't have to change shadow back to SDC at any particular time. Is this what makes it different from Monero? Kind of seems like the blockchain and the SDC act kind of like an anchor for the shadow (SDT) to exist and be able to be spent and transferred. Any insight? I'm still trying to fully understand.
Shadow to Shadow transfers are just like Monero. They are not linkable or traceable. What makes this different from Monero is that it has both types of coins on the same chain.
SDC (and therefore transfers between Shadow and SDC) serves two purposes as far as I can tell:
1. It existed first, so it continues to be supported for backward compatibility
2. Transactions are smaller and faster, so there is an efficiency gain when anonymity isn't needed
yeah but they built it from scratch instead of copy and paste from bytecoin big difference, and they built it better and quicker
It was build from scratch based on an existing design. Monero has also rewritten portions of the cryptonote code from scratch, but we don't claim to be the inventors of it. Cryptography and brilliant creativity are very different from programming.
BTW, Monero never claimed to be anything new (though new things have been since added), it was launched as a direct of clone bytecoin (cryptonote) to get rid of the 82% premine. The rest of the technology was (and is) just fine.
Quote
so just drop it, go back to the XMR thread and focus on innovation because right now your getting your ass kicked
I thought I was having a conversation here about technology. Sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way.
P.S im stirring you up bro but seriously SDC was built from scratch quicker and better with no premine and just look at the wallet..i rest my case yeah but they built it from scratch instead of copy and paste from bytecoin big difference, and they built it better and quicker
It was build from scratch based on an existing design. Monero has also rewritten portions of the cryptonote code from scratch, but we don't claim to be the inventors of it. Cryptography and brilliant creativity are very different from programming.
BTW, Monero never claimed to be anything new (though new things have been since added), it was launched as a direct of clone bytecoin (cryptonote) to get rid of the 82% premine. The rest of the technology was (and is) just fine.
Quote
so just drop it, go back to the XMR thread and focus on innovation because right now your getting your ass kicked
I thought I was having a conversation here about technology. Sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way.
Thanks smooth. I'm going to start to look at both XMR & SDC. It sounds like DRK doesn't have what I'm calling "zero knowledge solution" to compare. Is that a fair assumption? It sounds like they are mixing, not hiding addresses, just trying to confuse the hell out of people in hopes they give up searching for links.
It is a bit more than that.
If you have two transactions A -> B and C -> D and you combine them into one tranasction that looks like this
Code:
A ---+ +--- C
+-->--+
B ---+ +--- D
+-->--+
B ---+ +--- D
then it really is impossible to tell whether A is paying C or D and likewise who B is paying. Now imagine that you combine 10 or 20 or 100 transactions like this. They use some other methods too, like standardizing denominations (so everything is broken down to 1+5+10, etc.), which cryptonote (and SDC) also does.
The bigger weakness is the masternodes, since they coordinate the process of constructing these large transactions, they do know who is paying whom, and could potentially log that or be compromised from the start. The idea is you are supposed to run your transaction through multiple masternodes and as long as they aren't all compromised, you should be okay. In theory.
Quote
If there is a transaction I should look at for DRK please post.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
I can't because I don't know enough about the DRK tools to identify the right transactions competently. I have a basic understanding of the methods they use, that is all.
I'm sure a DRK user can help you with that.
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
Doesn't the anonymity come from the use of ring signatures? It's just that both Cryptonote and ShadowCash use similar simplified applications of them? And that Cryptonote did it first? That's an important thing to clarify and will help with discussion.
What you are calling anonymity comes from ring signitures (untracability) and stealth addresses (unlinkability).
Cryptonote (an anonymous unknown entity) first applied both of these methods in a coherent cryptocurrency system, and deserves credit for the synthesis much the same way Satoshi deserves credit for synthesizing the ideas that went into bitcoin. SDC is using essentially the same construction as cryptonote for the anonymous coin type (Shadow tokens or whatever they are called).
What is the deal with shadow to shadow transfers? Are they linkable on the blockchain? I think possibly one of the main benefits of the Shadow scheme for anonymity is not just the crypto stuff(although that's the foundation), but the fact that you don't have to change shadow back to SDC at any particular time. Is this what makes it different from Monero? Kind of seems like the blockchain and the SDC act kind of like an anchor for the shadow (SDT) to exist and be able to be spent and transferred. Any insight? I'm still trying to fully understand.
How long did it take Bytecoin to develop the cryptonote tech LONG TIME! SDC built it better from scratch in just a few months plus all the other extras SDC has, XMR is just a copy of Bytecoin sorry but it is i was invested in XMR when it first came out also Dark and XC, only coins who built from scratch were Bytecoin XC & SDC so lets just end this i like cryptonote coins but there all basically copy and pastes of bytecoin, SDC is not, Cryptonote coins are not even in the same league as SDC...seriously the comparison is a joke
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
Doesn't the anonymity come from the use of ring signatures? It's just that both Cryptonote and ShadowCash use similar simplified applications of them? And that Cryptonote did it first? That's an important thing to clarify and will help with discussion.
What you are calling anonymity comes from ring signitures (untracability) and stealth addresses (unlinkability).
Cryptonote (an anonymous unknown entity) first applied both of these methods in a coherent cryptocurrency system, and deserves credit for the synthesis much the same way Satoshi deserves credit for synthesizing the ideas that went into bitcoin. SDC is using essentially the same construction as cryptonote for the anonymous coin type (Shadow tokens or whatever they are called).
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
Doesn't the anonymity come from the use of ring signatures? It's just that both Cryptonote and ShadowCash use similar simplified applications of them? And that Cryptonote did it first? That's an important thing to clarify and will help with discussion.
First off, has there been enough time to assess if ShadowCash project has a working Zero Knowledge solution?
Secondly, does the Monero project of Darkcoin project have a Zero Knowledge solution?
I'd like to compare anonymous transactions between the three projects being discussed here; XMR, DRK & Shadow. Could somebody post transaction IDs for each project showing an anonymous trade? I'd like to compare apples to apples when it comes to linkability and traceability. Ignoring codebase and proof differences between them for now.
If there are other working ZK solutions in projects I haven't mentioned that should be part of this comparison please add an anonymous transaction from them as well.
1 good example from each blockchain would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Secondly, does the Monero project of Darkcoin project have a Zero Knowledge solution?
I'd like to compare anonymous transactions between the three projects being discussed here; XMR, DRK & Shadow. Could somebody post transaction IDs for each project showing an anonymous trade? I'd like to compare apples to apples when it comes to linkability and traceability. Ignoring codebase and proof differences between them for now.
If there are other working ZK solutions in projects I haven't mentioned that should be part of this comparison please add an anonymous transaction from them as well.
1 good example from each blockchain would be appreciated.
Thanks.
i dont know if other coins will be able to give a link on the mainnet. but below, there is a link for sdc
http://explorer.shadow.cash/block/b3f1a4f783b87b78f182ebd45b664b66e715fb521b6da807a2c59c1dd39f0050
Thanks skip60. I'm going to use this one I got instead because it doesn't show an originating address:
http://explorer.shadow.cash/tx/4d6c60a1db3ff4963385552a168b81e6b3621e404e5b0798fcc8172ad747b212
First off, has there been enough time to assess if ShadowCash project has a working Zero Knowledge solution?
I haven't looked at the code. From the white paper it looks like it has what you are calling a "Zero Knowledge solution" based on the methods from cryptonote.
Quote
Secondly, does the Monero project of Darkcoin project have a Zero Knowledge solution?
Monero and Darkcoin are different projects.
Monero uses cryptonote, so it has what you are calling a "Zero Knowledge solution" (and has had it since day one, in April 2014). Nobody outside of the SDC community calls it that, but you can use whatever terminology you like I suppose. Cryptonote (i.e. Monero) does use a simple zero knowledge proof in its signature scheme, the same method that SDC uses.
Darkcoin uses a variation of coinjoin where inputs and outputs from various transactions are combined by a series of semi-trusted nodes called Masternodes, essentially mixing those transactions together. There is not really a special transaction type for this, just a regular bitcoin-style transaction with many inputs and outputs.
Quote
I'd like to compare anonymous transactions between the three projects being discussed here; XMR, DRK & Shadow. Could somebody post transaction IDs for each project showing an anonymous trade? I'd like to compare apples to apples when it comes to linkability and traceability. Ignoring codebase and proof differences between them for now.
Here is a Monero transaction:
http://chainradar.com/xmr/transaction/ab187945caff3a9ca5034338657808f242d8f2899fc11d93f2ef2d719bb16ecd
I don't know enough about the others to provide correct links to anonymous transactions.
Thanks smooth. I'm going to start to look at both XMR & SDC. It sounds like DRK doesn't have what I'm calling "zero knowledge solution" to compare. Is that a fair assumption? It sounds like they are mixing, not hiding addresses, just trying to confuse the hell out of people in hopes they give up searching for links. If there is a transaction I should look at for DRK please post.
I appreciate it.
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
just playing bro hahaha 
What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.
It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.
It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.
First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.
What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).
This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.
Jump to: