Quote from: child_harold on December 25, 2014, 08:26:50 PM

Quote from: smooth on December 25, 2014, 07:53:35 PM

Quote from: child_harold on December 25, 2014, 07:12:21 PM

I don't doubt that fluffypony and smooth are "smart" but their statements have undoubtedly affected the price of SDC without justification IMO

LOL if you think I influence the price.

Seriously, alts are in a tough spot, 90+% of them are down a lot this year, regardless of merit. BTC too.

I thought what I said about shadowsend was largely positive (certainly compared to most of the crap out there), but (some of) you guys are just a bit too competitive and defensive to see it that way.

I am not a Team member. I speak for myself.

As one of the first established devs to weigh in (together with ur colleagure fluffypony) I believe ur comments did play a role, yes. I will re-read them.

Id be wary of casting aspersions on competitiveness. After all we have this in common, yes? A healthy competition which ultimately benefits the end user.

Good Luck.

+ merry christmas etc

OK. Apologies smooth.

I have re-read some of the thread . I agree your comments about shadowsend were largely positive. See:

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.

I would like to invite smooth, fluffypony and anybody else to study this last para most closely and open it up for discussion.

Assertions:

1. Is it true to say both SDC and XMR have built their own cryptonote systems from scratch?
2. Is it true to say Shadow>Shadow transactions offer the same security as Monero? Perhaps better?
3. Is it true to say providing a working GUI wallet for cryptonote transactions that SDC made great strides forward for user-adoption of a working cryptonote implementation?

Questions:

1. smooth said: "If you mint and redeem frequently, you will have issues that reduce your anonymity". Is this a problem? Is so solutions? Discuss

2. smooth mentioned advantages ("This is indeed something new, and there are some advantages to it"). However these were not mentioned. Any suggestions?

3. My understanding is that XMR does not use a blockchain db. Working out your db structure I bleieve is why you're still developing the gui wallet. In any case what are the implications (pros/cons) re the differing db structures

4. Do we still need SDC>SDC? Useful for non-anon transactions? Does it compromise our anon to keep SDC>SDC an option?