First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.
shady as shit.
Indeed
I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.
So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text?
While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped?
I'm not buying (coins or story).
shady as shit.
No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers. The code speaks for itself. The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin. Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation. So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting. Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition. It doesn't make people want to buy your coin.
I'm commenting on the pattern of behavior with respect to the peculiar omission of a very interesting subset of footnotes not being referenced in the text, twice.
The "oops, sorry, mistake" defense is very popular in crypto circles. Sometimes it is perfectly honest. Sometimes it is not. People will have to make up their own minds.
As far as the technology, direction, etc. people can evaluate that best by looking at the actual project, not what you or I have to say about it.
As for calling you a dumb shit, here's the context:
As quoted by rynomster the lead SDC dev:
more pumping nonsense about "better anon" vaporware.
As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that.
this is non-sequitur
For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not.
whats the ref?
Try this, dumb shit:
No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too:
More ignorant nonsense about SDC minting having anything to do with zerocoin, not copied from cryptonote, etc.
i.e. more or less exactly what I said SDC proponents constantly do.
Sigh.
I guess the new iteration of this nonsense is "anonymous tokens are not just anonymous outputs." Hey dumb shit, that's
exactly what they are in SDC.
I was referring to ryno's own words:
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
