Quote from: edward_cullen on December 17, 2014, 12:33:10 AM

Quote from: binaryFate on December 16, 2014, 10:54:19 PM

Quote from: edward_cullen on December 16, 2014, 10:03:02 PM

Quote from: digicoin on December 16, 2014, 09:12:31 PM

Quote from: edward_cullen on December 16, 2014, 09:08:42 PM

Monero may need to be worried about SDC since they implemented ring signatures on the more popular Satoshi crypto branch.

No worry. ShadowCash forks BlackCoin whose technology is not as good as Monero's. There is no such thing like ring signatures in SDC

ShadowCash is backed by CryptoAsian which is a well-known pump and dump trader/scammer

Using "technology is not as good as" seems too broad to be meaningful. Care to elaborate? You may want to check again, because I'm pretty sure SDC just released a version utilizing ring signatures.

See this reddit thread

Quote from: fluffyponyza

There's little substance in the code, the verifyRingSignature() method is trivially simple and isn't called anywhere else in that commit. Their proposed function, generateRingSignature(), doesn't exist and thus it's impossible to determine whether they've actually done anything of substance. The whitepaper is purposely vague in many of the important parts, and a review in conjunction with code is impossible, so we have to take it on the face of it...which is that NIZK + ring signatures + security + low space utilisation = impossible right now.

The bold part of your message is false.

SDC supporters are claiming that this was in response to the first push, there is now more code available.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.msg9862235#msg9862235