Ohh I see, are you well versed on zerocoin also?
I have read the paper yes.
Wouldn't Shadow have to stop double spending two times? Once for the ring sigs, and also again for the minting of tokens?
No, and no this has nothing to do with zerocoin.
Oh I see, I wonder why the ShadowCash whitepaper cites zerocoin when mentioning the minting aspect of SDC and Shadow.
Maybe for the same reason people keep parroting comments about "zero knowledge" and how it isn't really like cryptonote, and how many coins make silly claims. Because it is perceived to be good for pumping, though that game seems to be up.
Can we get back on topic of discussing XMR and DRK, or are you going to continue spamming SDC here?
Ohh I think you shouldn't accuse a project of being a scam unless you can be 100% sure. As far as I know, you have not read or audited the code. You know there is going to be a review coming out, and if you are wrong about your accusations that Shadow is just a scam and the devs lied about their citations in their whitepaper, then its going to hurt your credibility a bit.
Now, now, you are the one making false accusations here. I never said they lied. It is true that the original zerocoin paper was presented as an "add on" to the bitcoin blockchain that include a conversion/minting process (of course that idea was resoundingly rejected by the bitcoin community). If SDC is going to also propose an add-on to a bitcoin-style blockchain then there is going to be a conversion process and it is reasonable to cite zerocoin. However, in both cases, zerocoin and cryptonote-with-conversions, the fact that there is conversion
has nothing to do with the underlying cryptography, it is just a means of integration.
It is confusing this last point where pumpers in the SDC community who constantly make claims about "zero knowledge" and how it is "like zerocoin because it has minting" are being either ignorant or willfully ignorant. I have no idea if those pumpers are sanctioned by the project.