Topic: Shadowcash vs. Monero, an unbiased debate. - page 5. (Read 7796 times)

There is really only one "important" coin and that's Bitcoin, maybe. It has something like 95% market cap share (though it only a minuscule near-zero market cap share compared to fiat banking). Its developers have certainly not refuted the claim that PoS is a sham when it comes to any sort of real long-term decentralized security.

The rest are long-shot attempts to become important, with varying degrees of scamminess and developers who are varying degrees of full of shit in promoting their coin/agenda/sham. That certainly includes both of the coins being discussed here.

Can you explain in terms a non coder can understand why POS is without doubt far more risky than pow. I would really like to know why ?  This argument seems to have been going every since ppc came along.

Some devs of some pretty important coins seem to refute this claim.

Is there some chart showing the possible attack vectors for each and the resulting outcome and damage.

POS+POW was thought to be more risky thann just POS.

The most efficient thing is a fully centralised banking system.

Everyone using cryptocurrencies (at this stage of the game) should reallyyyyyy understand that "efficient" does not correlate with "secure", "trustless", "cryptographically secure", or "decentralised". It saddens me that proponents of Proof-of-Stake systems are incapable of understanding how much risk they're offloading on to users, the very same users that are trusting the system to look after so much of their wealth.


I think most of the world has no idea what most of those words mean, and don't care about any of this;)


You sound like someone selling Network21 or Amway.

Bitcoin is doing just fine, in spite of it not having a "real world use" or "industrial use-case" or whatever the hipsters are blaming nowadays. Instead of looking for a killer application to "push crazy volume" (a pump-and-dump term if I ever saw one), I think the focus should be on creating a truly fungible cryptocurrency that defends and aggressively protects user's rights and privacy.

both are shit coins and both bagholders are going mental meltdowns

IMO POS on mobile devices ftw. Shit will get more efficient. Add a marketplace and boom full economic solution. I think most of the world is still waiting for someone to actually audit the process of sdc>sdt and whether that transition is definitively needed for true zk anon. But I am a fan of SDC because of regular dev updates and an obvious progression in development so I am biased. But you do get the same from all these monero devs that are present in this thread.

I like Monero too. I have held some but I did not see a direction for application IRL so I bailed. I think that, personally, what it boils down to for me is this; "where are things going?". I think SDC is on the right track and will fill an AIO gap that should push crazy volume.  But that assumes it launches the marketplace and audit. Without those two things SDC is just like Monero... A good coin without a target audience except for dm. Everyone is waiting so a thread like this is really premature unless it solely focuses on the sdc>sdt transition to be a thread of substance instead of dev fud. Someone should like... audit them both or something instead of saying what their opinion is. This is very easy to break down key points.

Either a coin is capable of zk-anon or it is not.
Either a coin has real world application or it does not.
Either a coin is capable of scaling with technology and social awareness in an efficient way or it does not.

It isn't on our project agenda, but you should keep in mind that the nature of Monero is that a lot of projects get done by third parties (this is not just a bold theory but is already reality with projects like xmr.to, moneroaddress.com, monerowallet.com, etc.), so someone else may well do one.

Yes it is


- Switching to PoW is possible as (1) a hybrid PoS/PoW or (2) straight PoW if the security of PoS was indeed an issue.
- If SDC moved to PoW they'd have to increase money supply and (like mentioned above) the social contract and community trust will be greatly impacted even if successful.
- Other coin projects have gone from PoW to PoS, nobody has gone from PoS to PoW.

---

Other thoughts:
- I agree 100% XMR distribution is better than SDC. Shadow is very top heavy 1 year into the project.
- Both Dev teams have at least one in-house cryptographer.
- Shadow is currently testing a new ring-sig algo that makes it ~40% leaner
- Monero doesn't have a core GUI but has at least 5 independent wallet GUIs.
- Shadow has a core GUI that also has encrypted chat built in (+ ultimately a marketplace)

Debatable topic: Monero's single token (100% private) system to Shadow's dual token (public & 100% private) system.
- Which is better and do you really need 2 coins to do what 1 can do flawlessly?

Does Monero intend to develop an i2p market as well? I'm not familiar with the plans. If it intends to solely cater to the TOR-based DNMs, well, ok... TOR is not what it used to be thanks to the NSA, and centralized markets are going to be a dying breed, thanks to exit scams, and the NSA.

Having a fully integrated system is one of the major reasons the shadow project could be so revolutionary, not just in the crypto space. Convenience carries a major value and decreases the barriers to entry=mass market adoption. 

smooth I am quoting the OP just to prove I am not spamming. americanpegasus mentioned boolberry by name

No, not without ruining their social contract and destroying any trust in the cryptocurrency's emission.


'Twas just a recent example, coming off the back of Namecoin having to deal with it.

Not really. It is a huge change to the social contract to do that. The overall community could do it with sufficient consensus, but good luck.


The anonymous tokens are just coins. They have two different signature styles on the blockchain, Bitcoin-style and Cryptonote-style. The latter are what they call tokens.

1. Developers are capable of changing to PoW if a vulnerability in PoSv2 presents itself, yes?

2. Is this in regards to the vulnerability that BIP66 fixed w/ DER signatures?

3. Gonna check this out.

Anyone have any opinions on the anonymous tokens that Shadowcash uses to destroy and mint new coins and conduct ring signature transactions?

I have nothing against BBR but this is off topic. Please don't spam.

It is odd that Polo's "all time" chart shows a starting price of 346k but your numbers are more in line with what Bittrex shows at about the same time period, so it makes sense.

BooBerry is best, Count Chocula and Franken Berry can suck it

Can we keep this discussion/debate technical? Market prices should be irrelevant.

I'm nearly 100% certain I made the first sale on Polo; here is my trading history for part of that day. After the typical high orders of new markets, prices were just above 0.001. I was extremely surprised when they rose so much over the coming weeks, as they'd been trading in that lower range for a while on the other exchange.

I've always viewed shadowcash as a scam. Not only that but it's complete bloatware and the coding is corrupted. That alone makes me question it's security.

Monero (XMR) is flawless in every sense, and fully anonymous... Everyone loves monero, especially the deepwebs.

No, it was at 188K (not 400K, although it did get added to Poloniex at 346K EDIT: about 100k -- see below) when it was first listed on Bittrex, and that is not the same as launch. It traded as OTC and on the small cryptonote.to exchange for a while before polo. The prices for that (starting at 50K and as low as 20K) can be seen here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/closed-mro-monero-trading-thread-and-otc-xchg-578192

As I said, both coins had ups and downs. If you bought SDC at 38K early on, you're up a little now, but you had some tough times when it languished at around 15-20K for quite a while.

Also, the histories are not really comparable because when XMR traded at 50k or 20k or 188k or 346K, the nature of mining and gradual distribution is such that there were very few coins even in existence at the time. So very few of the coins in todays investors' holdings could possibly have traded at those prices, it is literally impossible. The majority of currently-outstanding coins were probably mined when prices were around 100k-200k, and have only ever traded in the range of 100k-400k, although someone could actually calculate that I suppose.

XMR was at 0.004 now (launch) now it's at 0.0019

that's not fluctuation rather free fall

SDC was at 0.00026 (launch) now it's at 0.00058

good times.


XMR seems to be struggling a lot lately. not sure if it's even a good comparison to be honest since SDC has made its name through constant hard work and constant increase in price with little fluctuation...increasing investors while gaining popularity and giving confidence to people so they can hold it for long term without confusion or doubt.

in fact I'm extremely surprise to see it at this price it should be at least 200k and that is still cheap imho.