Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 450. (Read 1289636 times)

That is literally you. I am just defending a good dev and pointing out your cheap stab at trying to grab some of the SDC market. Sorry skip and seb, I am done. My point is that SDC is legit, if you have concerns or questions, IRC is quite active and a more efficient way.

Let's make this the end of that particular discussion please, it's starting to get a bit unpleasant.

fluffypony,

dont you have a coin to develop, u did ur points

and leave us alone now...it it like kindergarden here because of you and erok

cut it guys, you make this thread useless

What it "means" is quite simple:

Well I'm deeply sorry I'm starting to annoy you - I don't set out to annoy people, merely to be pragmatic and realistic. Sometimes that steps on toes, and there's little I can do about that as a possible outcome.

In view of my annoyance of you, I thus formally remove my compliments to the dev, and give them no kudos whatsoever so as not to annoy the illustrious erok.

All day long you have spent on this thread and not on your own xmr thread, it means something, whether it is advertising or something else, it is obvious that you do not have good intentions.

And in my first post reply to you
"The review: "I don't understand it, so I don't like it."

Why don't people just go into IRC when they have a question? Trolls just post randomly and it turns into wack-a-mole by the dev hitting different sites. Anyone that reviews and has questions and doesn't go into IRC while dev is on for answers, loses all credibility IMO.

What really sucks here is that it seems like devs are trolling devs most likely to grab cheap shadow."

I clearly didn't mention monero there

I first mentioned monero in response to :
"Yep, that's correct. I made the first two comments with respect to commit 94bfb03. Thereafter (the following day) commit 317b9b1 was made and pushed to the repo, and subsequently pointed out to me. I reviewed that, and thus updated that thread with the additional comment.

Honestly, I don't really care to get into a this-coin-that-coin debate. Kudos to the dev(s) for actually putting in effort to implement a very simplified ring signature system. If they add bad utxo blacklisting and also provide a suitable fix for the chain reaction privacy reveal outlined in Monero Research Lab's MRL-0001 research bulletin they are well on their way to implementing one half of the two core privacy principles espoused in Monero's cryptography (that is to say, they would then be able to provide a measure of cryptographic untraceability, but not cryptographic unlinkability)."

Which IMO is advertising.
You are starting to annoy me.

*edit* Now you are just lieing and slandering so I don't even care to respond anymore. Anyone smart enough will read through it and see your first advertising stone cast @ Today at 03:15:26 PM

Except in your comment (where you first responded to me) it was to a comment where I never mentioned Monero, CryptoNote, or any other cryptocurrency. Here's the comment you were responding to -

"Not sure if I'm misunderstanding Longenecker or everyone else is. My initial comments were made after reviewing 1 of the 2 commits to the "anon" branch, the 2nd commit didn't exist at the time. It would be impossible for me to have foreknowledge as to what would be contained in the commit, and any idiot can look at the first commit and also observe that it didn't contain generateRingSignature(), nor were the verification functions wired up. I'm certainly not "busted" or "fudding", and if that's anyone's takeaway from me making a clear observation then they need to seriously revisit that persecution complex of theirs."

I never compared it to anything. I commented directly on my immediate observations. Your response was: "Also, are you really trying to advertise for Monero here?"

Chin up, chum. You made a mistake, you overstepped, and it's ok. We all get sensitive (sometimes overly so) when defending something we believe in. There's no disrespect here, and you don't need to continually bash this topic to defend yourself - I certainly don't hold any ill-will against you, and I 'm certain nobody else does:) Let's leave it be as it is, and you can stop with the silly accusations of me "advertising", ok?

He could have just said cryptonote. Which has been addressed MANY times.

He was using it as an example since the argument/discussion has been comparisons of xmr and sdc. But you can lump all Cryptonote coins into it xmr/bbr/bytecent etc

More condescension, awesome...

Again if you wouldn't have used your own coin in the example you were trying to make, it wouldn't have been advertising and I wouldn't have an issue now would I?

Also it seems like you are very unclear about SDC. So yes, go to IRC and ask about this stuff instead of making a scene like a child.

Reading and correctly interpreting are two distinct skills:)


No, you said I should go to IRC *if I have a question*. I still don't have any questions:)

You followed that up with a mindless insinuation that I'm only here "advertising".


In direct response to the idea that I'd looked at the code before it was released. Which clearly I didn't, because logic (see above).


Well that's just as condescending to Monero - I've stated there that Monero doesn't have NIZKP either (the simple implementation in keyimages aside). Your persecution complex makes you imagine that I'm making "condescending coin comparisons" when instead I'm being pragmatic about both, silly rabbit.


Enjoy your video games, cheers!

Shadow is a crops up in computer science fairly often to describe things, for example the trecherous shadow DOM, or shadow paging or a shadow table. The list goes on.

You know I can read right? Why just make stuff up now?

I initially told you to go to IRC if you can't figure something out about the coin. That literally was my whole point to posting in reply to you. Then you got negative.
"and any idiot can look at the first commit and also observe that it didn't contain generateRingSignature(), nor were the verification functions wired up."
And you made direct condescending coin comparisons "when clearly there is no more NIZKP in the source than exists in Monero's keyimage system"
I could post-mortem this more accurately but I would rather play video games.
I responded. I regret nothing.

edit* if you can't figure something out why post here and make a scene instead of asking in IRC? advertising. Now if you wouldn't have used your own coin in the example I pointed out in a previous post, things would have been different in our convo.

Absolutely - I've never pretended to know everything or be so completely polyglottic that I can immediately and thoroughly interpret a codebase. I do, however, understand the "logic between sdc and shadow", and have limited my observations solely to Shadow (as described by the whitepaper).

"Zero-knowledge proofs" are a special type of cryptographic proof that allow you to verify something, prima facie, without knowing all of the details thereof as part of the proof. It is a special class of proofs, and doesn't refer to a unit of measure (i.e. tokens). Our current cryptographic body of knowledge is easily able to identify (cryptographic) zero-knowledge proofs with respect to transaction verification in cryptocurrencies, and Zerocoin / Zerocash (along with their failings from a verification speed / size / trusted accumulator perspective) are among the leading implementations thereof. At this point the "unknown" nature of subtle flaws in those cryptocurrencies make them unattractive for those of us more focused on the "now" than the "then".

Personally welcome your opinion aswell. I enjoy research and knowledge. I respect those who already hold knowledge that I have yet to obtain and I respect legitimate developers for their ability.

So cheers!

I think skip might be special  

You're overthinking what is clearly me poking fun at you:) Smile, be happy, have fun. You needn't be as hostile and serious as you're being.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I commented on this thread was because my comments (made in response to someone specifically asking for comments on the Monero sub-reddit) were being misrepresented. Everything beyond that is me either being tongue-in-cheek or reacting to people that seem extremely offended that I dare stick my head in here.

I think I've been quite complementary (realistically so) of the effort put forth by Ryno, and every time "erok" tries to twist that into "advertising!" he not only insults me, but he does Ryno a disservice by negating both my compliments and my realistic criticisms.

Also any developer worth his salt will take any criticism pragmatically and not personally, lord knows I have received my fair share of (fair) criticism and learnt from it. The day we falsely believe we're impervious to failure is the day we stop succeeding at anything.

so fluffypony,

lets not forget the quote above and lets wait for SDCDev's answers

at the time being, i have a question to you......

is it possible that, our code is high above your skills (no offence) and maybe you didnt understand the logic between sdc and shadow

because at your comments, you didnt mention about tokens/shadows

you ignore entirely any refrence to shadows tokens.....can ‘tokens’ be zk proofs

think on it man