Quote from: smooth on December 23, 2014, 01:00:47 PM

Quote from: LiteBit on December 23, 2014, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: smooth on December 23, 2014, 12:38:45 PM

Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2014, 12:27:43 PM

What many people seem to be missing (and it is totally normal to do so because it's not been seen before) is they keep comparing it to existing solutions.

SDC has something completely new in that it destroys coins that are then converted into redeemable tokens that sit on top of the blockchain and these tokens can then be reconverted via minting into new SDC.

It's only the exchange / allocation of tokens that use the ring sig with basic NIZK to prove to the blockchain that the holder owns the value of the output without revealing identity, it's not the actual coins using ring sig.

It is indeed a very well thought out system that the cannot be followed on an explorer.

First of all, every single cryptocurrency destroys coins when they are used. That's how the work. An input can be spent once and only once, and any output (including change) is a new coin.

What SDC has is essentially two types of coins on the same blockchain. When you say "destroys the coins" what that really means is a type of transaction that has one type of coin as input and another type as output (SDC calls this "mint" I believe). The latter kind is what is virtually identical to cryptonote. The former is (as far as I know, and I will assume this, but I haven't studied it) virtually identical to bitcoin. There is also a transaction type that has cryptonote-style coins on the input side and bitcoin-style coins on the output side (SDC calls this "redeem" I think).

This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it, but also disadvantages. It is not correct to say that it adds anonymity though. The anonymity comes from the use of cryptonote style coins. As long as you use the cryptonote-style coins exclusively or predominantly, you have the same anonomity as Monero. If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity.

Doesn't the anonymity come from the use of ring signatures? It's just that both Cryptonote and ShadowCash use similar simplified applications of them? And that Cryptonote did it first? That's an important thing to clarify and will help with discussion.

What you are calling anonymity comes from ring signitures (untracability) and stealth addresses (unlinkability).

Cryptonote (an anonymous unknown entity) first applied both of these methods in a coherent cryptocurrency system, and deserves credit for the synthesis much the same way Satoshi deserves credit for synthesizing the ideas that went into bitcoin. SDC is using essentially the same construction as cryptonote for the anonymous coin type (Shadow tokens or whatever they are called).

Thanks for clarifying that to me. That makes sense with how tracing and linking is hidden... ring sigs -> (un)trace & stealth addresses -> (un)link.

Yes ShadowCash uses both, the Shadow token can only be used with stealth addresses (thus the untraceable and unlink-able transaction). And you are right, if Cryptonote first combined this logic into a crypto system then yes, give credit where credit is due.

I think it's important for everyone to see this is how vetting and improvements happen in the real world. You don't see any Bitcoin purists coming into this topic saying, "ShadowCash uses a blockchain? Satoshi invented that, you're just a clone of Bitcoin..." We all give credit to SN for figuring out the public ledger, solving double spend, etc. If CN first applied ring sigs & stealth addresses in it's system then we need to acknowledge that. That's what Shadow is doing too. Now, the SDC devs have innovated that idea with implementation of Shadow tokens, but the original working system (just like the blockchain system, we too are using) is another project's innovation.

This should also clarify to everyone why the XMR supporters are saying it's a clone of Cryptonote. See where they get that from? Since April 2014 they've been doing it. Bitcoin supporters would be saying the same thing if it wasn't a complete waste of time to write the sentence on the BITCOIN Talk forum.