Quote from: Rikafip on January 20, 2021, 08:42:37 AM

Quote from: darktor on January 20, 2021, 08:33:02 AM

Please explain here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5310869.0

Yeah I was just about to ask the same thing. Similar name (Cyclon-Tornado), similar looking website, direct copy/paste from Tornado Cash Medium article etc. Seems like very little effort on their own here, and that usually ends up bad for everyone involved. How to trust them enough to deposit your own hard earn money when they can't make few lousy sentences by themselves?

I can imagine their answer though, it will be "we were only inspired by Tornado" or something along those lines.

edit: I stand corrected, Cyclone did mention Tornado Cash but it still baffles me that they copied some basic stuff like website instead making it on their own.

Although the visual aspects may be similar between cyclone protocol and Tornado Cash, which may be forgivable in the case of a hard fork as is the case, I am more interested in the fact that the security of its cryptography is robust and that it implies some aspect spread on the new token that brings some additional value.
- The first aspect is for me demonstrated by the two code audits passed by Cyclone, the first of which shown here https://docs.cyclone.xyz/audit#audit-report-by-chainshield indicates that "for zkSNARK contracts which have already been audited, we have confirmed that they are unmodified from the original contracts used by Tornado.cash". This is important to me, because the use of original contracts such as Verifier.sol and MerkleTreeWithHistory.sol, imply that both tokens share the same strength in the Trusted Setup MPC process, which is so important for zkSNARK technology In both cases, the largest and therefore most trusted Trusted Setup ceremony with 1114 contributions, the first being Vitalik Buterin (https://ceremony.tornado.cash/) This type of ceremonies ensure the reliability of the initial cryptography keys as long as at least one of their prior participants has acted reliably. Honestly, in this case I prefer that they use the original zkSNARK contracts, and not that they have tried a trusted Setup own self.
- Regarding the second point, I think that this new token does provide additional value over the original at least in two points:
1.- The fact of being cross-chain implies that users who want anonymization for their tokens can do so in their original chains without the need for prior (non-anonymous) exchanges to Ether. At present, owners of USDT, TORN, ETH, IoTX, ZM, XIM, CYC, GFT, BUSD, VITA, QUICK, MATIC, USDC, BNB, can participate in anonymization pools of their tokens over their original chains of BSC, Polygon, ETH or Iotex, without having to exchange tokens or change chains, which could compromise your anonymity.
--> Cyclone adds liquidity mining pools of its own CYC token, which is an interesting DEFI addition that seeks to revalue its own token, or at least stabilize its value, from a community of owners who do not seek anonymization but simply the composition of interest from the rewards of said pool. This on a token with a max supply of just 50,000 makes it particularly interesting.
Just adding that the support shown by the Iotex team, openly on social networks, to Cyclone, makes me trust the latter. After all, the iotex team is one of the most reputable and respected in relation to blockchain security.