Links
The current SDC ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.0
The original SDC ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.0
ShadowSend v2 whitepaper http://shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcash-anon.pdf


The censorship on the SDC thread has gotten heavy-handed and fascist. I hate what it has become.

Since I have questions which will not be accepted in that thread I have created this one. It is uncensored, unmoderated and a real forum for discussion.

Shadow commissioned Isidor Zeuner to perform a cryptographic peer review of Shadowsendv2 almost a year ago. He requested more documentation to perform the review. It is mental to expect somebody to read through thousands of lines of code

There was no vote to move on to the market without Zeuner review, neither was there a vote to slash a 20 million supply to 6million in the first 2 weeks of SDC's existence

Before it was made clear more documentation was required (on account of the terrible whitepaper etc etc) the Zeuner report was expanded at the request of the Shadow Team to include comparisons with DarkSend and Crytonote, which to me seems like a delay tactic in hindsight.

Yes, the Zeuner scandal has raised a BIG RED FLAG for me personally and I wonder what will happen to the 5BTC donated for the review. But it's not the money, its the waste of time waiting for nothing I resent most. The SDC Team are in lock-down and will not indulge any conversation regarding the review.

Saying "look at the code" as some have said is unrealistic and saying BTC didnt have a peer review for years is irrelevant since we bloody well commissioned one a year ago!

I asked if the documents being prepared would help Zeuner complete a crytpographic peer review

ffmad (SDC Team) evaded my Q by saying it would be helpful for devs etc (see quote below)
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.msg12576177#msg12576177

I said that sounded like a No, it wouldnt help Zeuner and I asked for clarification.

NO reply. And all my posts regarding this were deleted

I can only assume whatever docs are being prepared will not aid Zeuner understand ShadowSend and (for example) why both NIZKPs AND ring sigs are used.

YES or NO - does the documentation you are writing permit a cryptographic peer review of ShadowSendV2? I can only assume given the evasiveness the answer is sadly NO.

There is a great deal more to say and more links to provide but Ill leave it here for now.

In short how can these guys be trusted anymore if they wont stand behind their product and provide a simple peer review of the crypto scheme?

Thanks.