LOL.

Ok. So this is what I found:

It seems that the following text is the exact same in both the Shieldcoin paper and the RetroShare paper:

"The tunnelling service does not ensure the data integrity, nor its confidentiality. It’s the service’s responsibility to do that. We made that choice for robustness reasons, since tunnels can die unpredictably (e.g. when a peer in the middle disconnects).

File transfer, for instance manages multiple tunnels per hash, and asks chunks again if they cannot be obtained or got corrupted after the previous request."

This text appears just under the tunneling diagram that the Shieldcoin dev used in the section of his paper where he describes tunneling. The diagram also appears on the RetroShare document:

https://retroshareteam.wordpress.com/page/3/

As far as I can see, the rest of the Shieldcoin paper was very well paraphrased when others' ideas were used and it's obvious that the dev has put his own twist on these ideas.

In my opinion, it seems that perhaps the dev when constructing his paper thought that the tunneling diagram from RetroShare did a great job explaining tunneling, decided to use the diagram, and made the mistake of using the same paragraph of text associated with the diagram which explains what is going on in the diagram. Should he have paraphrased that paragraph? Probably.

Does that mean that Shieldcoin is a scam? NO. NO. NO.

Let's just cool it and hear what the dev has to say later when he awakes from his nap.