Quote from: child_harold on December 30, 2014, 09:56:12 PM

Guess we'll have to wait for somebody more qualified to reply. (re ur ecosytem assertion)

In the meantime I'd remind readers that ShadowCash also offers Shadow>SDC transactions which certainly would allow for anon'd btc style transactions. I am not aware of the differences anon-wise between SDC>Shadow and Shadow>Shadow.

".. also offers Shadow>SDC transactions"

SDC>Shadow is the correct transaction to imitate anon'd btc style transactions. Essentially sending to a stealth address (Shadow only resides in stealth addresses). And this jumbles the trace-ability of the transaction.

"I am not aware of the differences anon-wise between SDC>Shadow and Shadow>Shadow."

Shadow to Shadow is unique to a bitcoin codebase coin. This is the first of it's kind, ShadowCash's innovation (implemented on the bitcoin codebase). The difference between SDC to Shadow and Shadow to Shadow is that ring signatures can be applied to Shadow to Shadow transactions because Shadow only resides in stealth addresses. So a Shadow to Shadow transaction is un-traceable (stealth addresses) and un-link-able (ring signatures).

edit: Shadow > SDC can also use ring signatures.

Hope that helps!

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is my understanding of SSv2.