Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.
Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416
Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416
Quote from: othe post linked above
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.
Quote
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).
Quote from: othe
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.
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
Quote
whats the ref?
Try this, dumb shit:
Quote from: SDC whitepaper
