Ryno's a good guy and you know he is. Can you at least keep the discussion here technical, there's just no need for nasty personal attacks like that.



I think you need a hug.

Mr Humility in action.

You can maybe undestand my point of view though, that last post is the first time you've actually made a suggestion with enough substance to it to actually be actionable. Just claiming that code is "poor" isn't very constructive.

Anyway, no hard feelings.

Look sidhujag, you thought you'd come in and take a couple of cheap shots at Shadow in order to advertise sys. It's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Why don't you come back when you're actually able to back up your claims instead of coming here, making a claim and then asking others to back it up for you.

Not really getting the whole burden of proof thing are you? You're the great coder, you should be able to tell me that.

You claimed SDC's code to be of poor quality.

As you're obviously not familiar with the concept:


Took me about 15 seconds: https://github.com/shadowproject/shadow/tree/master/src/test  

I think the fact that you couldn't find it yourself says about all that needs to be said about your credibility.

Do you realise how stupid you sound now?


Now you're claiming you can't read it because it's closed source (guess I'm imagining this github repo). So you made your claim without having looked at the code.

You should probably stop before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. I'll be waiting.

Then prove me wrong and show me exactly which portions of Shadow's code you think are of poor quality (the part Shen's bug report relates to obviously excluded) and explain how you would improve upon then. Otherwise it just looks like you're here dishonestly casting aspersions on another project in the hope of promoting your own.

I suspect based on the number of misspelled words in your post that your ability to judge the quality of code probably isn't too spectacular. Still, you wouldn't be sidhujag if you didn't use this as an opportunity to shill for syscoin (as you have done with the majority of your posts in this thread).

It will be fixed.

Glad that from everything I wrote you were able to find something else to use as ammunition smooth. You're nothing if not efficient. The project is open source and community-driven so if you, or better yet - someone actually qualified would like to join us and help in that department they'd be made most welcome.

I appreciate the more constructive tone of your posts now Child_Harold, but your frustration over the way the peer review was handled is causing you to wrongly attribute things to maliciousness or bad faith. The below is just my personal response to some of your points and the current situation. I don't presume to speak for the team or anyone else here.


SHADOWCHAT

Unfortunately I don't have the technical know-how to speak authoritatively on this, but from my understanding the code is substantially different from Bitmessage's because there was no C++ implementation of it. It wasn't converted from Java/Python, but written from scratch based on an overview of their system.

Part of the problem with Ryno withdrawing from public forums such as Bitcointalk (a decision I can understand) is that these debates have predominantly been conducted on a superficial level, with the focus on hastily put together marketing materials such as the whitepaper rather than on analysis of the code itself. But if the intention was to hide the fact that ShadowChat drew upon Bitmessage's system it wouldn't have been referenced in the whitepaper or, more importantly, unambiguously in the code comments. Cries of "plagiarism" are nonsensical.


TECNOVERT

Tecnovert is real but isn't actively contributing to development at present.


ZEUNER REVIEW

From what I know of the situation, with each fresh request for further documentation the suspicion grew that Isidor Zeuner simply wasn't properly qualified to carry out the kind of peer review Shadow required. Had he been, we surely would have known about this issue sooner. There was real clamour for some kind of review at the time, presumably because some hoped that it would remedy what was seen as the market's lukewarm response to the ShadowSend v2 release. However, you're re-writing history by suggesting he was hired to carry out the review. Zeuner was suggested and afterwards there was a donation drive to raise 5 BTC as a token of gratitude. Obviously in hindsight he should have been properly vetted first and the BTC shouldn't have been transferred to him until it was reasonably certain that he'd deliver. But like I said, there was a real clamour for some kind of review to be done. I think it could have been dealt with better - it seems that for some time it was believed the review could be salvaged but too much of the discussion was held behind closed doors. Had it all been conducted publicly it would have saved a lot of trouble and wouldn't have left room for baseless conspiracies to take root.


As an aside, it's pretty sad seeing the way some people (on both sides of the fence) have reacted to the current situation. I can't imagine anywhere else in the open source world where people from different projects would take so much satisfaction in, and would be so keen to gloat about, a vulnerability being found in another project's code. This behaviour seems to be considered reasonable because it's so common here, but in most other situations it'd be considered completely beyond the pale. At best they look like children. At worst like troops of warring monkeys. There's probably a pretty interesting sociological/zoological study there for anyone with the stomach to sift through the crapflood of invective. The project's goal is to allow people to transact online privately because we believe they have a right to do so. It's hard to reconcile other purported advocates of a right to privacy taking such sadistic pleasure in a bug being found.


Anyway, several good things have come out of this. Firstly, the conversation is now actually about the code. Obviously it's regrettable that there's a vulnerability, but this is exactly how open source software is supposed to work. A vulnerability was found, it was reported and it will be fixed. Shadow is no more irreparably damaged by this than Bitcoin was by the bug that allowed someone to create several billion BTC in a single transaction. It's experimental software and once fixed, the SDC codebase will be strengthened and will hopefully receive further scrutiny.

While we await a full formal response to it, I'd like to thank Shen for his contribution (regardless of how it was reported). Perhaps since he's likely to be receiving a significant amount of Shadow he'd consider contributing to the project in other ways going forward given that our aims our pretty well-aligned.

They have a warning section in which they cover MITM attacks and various other ways you might be compromised: https://tails.boum.org/doc/about/warning/index.en.html

And techniques for mitigating the risks and verifying the integrity of the ISO: https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html

Deadline? Try target numbnuts.

If you created more than endless noise on these forums you might have some idea about the scale of the task and the difficulty involved. And you probably wouldn't be so quick to belittle the work of others. Still you're right, alpha testing begins soon. Who knows what devilishness and black magic is at work here for them to be able to do such a thing with their "photoshop Shadowmarket".  

The alpha testing round will be limited to a small number of participants, but you can request an invite on ShadowTalk.

Thanks for being so vigilant L&S, fuck you to whoever keeps posting the bogus links and please everyone from now on refer only to the OP for download links for the latest clients.

The devs seem to really be on a tear at the moment, thanks as always for all the great work!

I don't know enough about the development of other pos coins to compare, but the Shadow devs are no slouches.



https://github.com/ShadowProject/shadow/commits/master

Also shout out to Jimmies for helping bring crz's designs to life in the ShadowGo/ShadowMarket preview video. Damned fine work!

Had a quick chat with someone called Millen on IRC earlier ("SebaSebastian" had been PM'ing him to ask if he wanted be part of great sdc pump chance for much btc profit!).
He mentioned he's added a section for Shadow on his site Crypto Junction:  
  
https://cryptojunction.com/cryptocurrency/shadowcash/

Looks like someone's bot's on the fritz on polo. It's gonna hurt when the owner sees what it's done.