The whole thing.

There are no traceable or linkable addresses anywhere on that transaction. Inputs are signed using one time ring signatures (which include a zero knowledge proof) and outputs use stealth (one time) addresses.

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.

Thanks skip60. I'm going to use this one I got instead because it doesn't show an originating address:
http://explorer.shadow.cash/tx/4d6c60a1db3ff4963385552a168b81e6b3621e404e5b0798fcc8172ad747b212


Thanks smooth. I'm going to start to look at both XMR & SDC. It sounds like DRK doesn't have what I'm calling "zero knowledge solution" to compare. Is that a fair assumption? It sounds like they are mixing, not hiding addresses, just trying to confuse the hell out of people in hopes they give up searching for links. If there is a transaction I should look at for DRK please post.

I appreciate it.

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).

What is the deal with shadow to shadow transfers?  Are they linkable on the blockchain?  I think possibly one of the main benefits of the Shadow scheme for anonymity is not just the crypto stuff(although that's the foundation), but the fact that you don't have to change shadow back to SDC at any particular time.  Is this what makes it different from Monero?  Kind of seems like the blockchain and the SDC act kind of like an anchor for the shadow (SDT) to exist and be able to be spent and transferred. Any insight? I'm still trying to fully understand.  

It is a bit more than that.

If you have two transactions A -> B and C -> D and you combine them into one tranasction that looks like this



then it really is impossible to tell whether A is paying C or D and likewise who B is paying. Now imagine that you combine 10 or 20 or 100 transactions like this. They use some other methods too, like standardizing denominations (so everything is broken down to 1+5+10, etc.), which cryptonote (and SDC) also does.

The bigger weakness is the masternodes, since they coordinate the process of constructing these large transactions, they do know who is paying whom, and could potentially log that or be compromised from the start. The idea is you are supposed to run your transaction through multiple masternodes and as long as they aren't all compromised, you should be okay. In theory.


I can't because I don't know enough about the DRK tools to identify the right transactions competently. I have a basic understanding of the methods they use, that is all.

I'm sure a DRK user can help you with that.

You can talk about technology without talking about XMR why not talk about bytecoin same difference P.S im stirring you up bro but seriously SDC was built from scratch quicker and better with no premine and just look at the wallet..i rest my case

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.

I don't see Bytecoin like a scam but a test