Can someone explain what happens if we remove convert button and use shadow to shadow only. Isnt that alot simpler?

"Competely anonymous" is not really a well defined term, especially when considering indirect inferences from timing factors and such.

Clearly the more you (and everyone else) use shadow (and using higher mix factors when you do) the less information you are leaking to potential blockchain analysis.

The scenario you describe is clearly better than frequent conversions back and forth, but not as good as everything being done with shadow exclusively. In order for that to happen every merchant, exchange, etc. needs to support it directly, and you also need to be willing to except the higher inherent costs of transactions.

Are shadow tokens invisible on the blockchain/richlist? Getting everybody to accept shadow seems possible, partuclarly since that would actually take advantage of this coins features.

The notion of pooling Shadow and spending only small amounts of the pooled shadow tokens in ur wallet seems it would obfuscate blockchain analysis.

But I wondering again, are the Shadow tokens visible on the blcochain? If everybody held Shadow tokens and not SDC the richlist would show only newly minted SDC? How much does the SDC minting compromise anon if at all. If so is there a solution?

This is a consequence of the unfinished Bytecoin code that we inherited, not a design decision. We are actively working on a DB (LMDB, to be accurate) test-drive instructions.

And then it is my understanding that you would face the same issue as Monero: no (scalable) B2B infrastructure for CryptoNote exists yet (the official GUI wallet will take care of this, FAQ entry).

Thanks for commenting:

"And then it is my understanding that you would face the same issue as Monero: no (scalable) B2B infrastructure for CryptoNote exists yet."

Would you please mind elaborating or explaining in simpler terms what a B2B infrastructure is?
Thanks

You might have a point.

As smooth made clear one of the great strengths of the ShadowCash anon solution as it stands now is its ability to use the existing BTC merchant infrastructure whilst adding the ability to send anon ZK transactions.

If one considers the Yin-Yang Chinese symbol we can consider its metaphor to ShadowCash. On the one hand we have the transparent BTC tx's (light) and on the other the anonymous tx's (dark). The ZK anon layer is atop the proven well-tested and solid btc underbelly. This adds confidence in the integrity of the network.



The Shadow tokens that exist in ShadowCash flout the surveillance of the BTC blockchain and exist only as shadowy ghosts within the Shadowverse. They may rest as shadows indefinitely or magically reappear at the behest of the user back into the light. The more one considers this the more magical it becomes.

But just as each half of the Yin-Yang has a spot of its opposite colour we must be wary that the SDC side does not compromise the anon of the ZK side. As such we must be sensitive and mitigate any data seepage. It seems feasible that obfuscating links between SDC and Shadow is do-able as we encourage more merchants to accept Shadow so our coins need never see the light of day.

Presumably as more coins become Shadow they will literally disappear from the blockchain, some will never return to its purview.

If I have figured things correctly then the ONLY thing an exchnage will need to do to deal in Shadow is generate a stealth address using the new wallet. Thats it. No new DB's. No new protocols. We just hook in. The decision to keep Shadow or convert to SDC is up to the merchant/exchange/gambling site etc. I'm sure we'd prefer them to be kept as Shadow. I don't see a need to convert back into SDC.

The acceptance of stealth addys int the BTC merchant world already exists meaning that unlike XMR, Shadow is ready for use NOW with almost zero changes required by exchanges/merchants. It is ready for prime time.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any points here. Thanks.

Correct me if i'm wrong guys, this is my understanding of the zk system.

3. Franklin sends 6,666SDC to his stealth addy with the 'SDC - Shadow' option. Now they are Shadow and have disappeared been destroyed from the blockchain.
4. All Franklin has to do is select 'Shadow - SDC' as the send option and send to the merchants regular SDC address. The ring signatures remove the link between the tokens and the network mints new SDC for the merchant, which are fresh coins with no blockchain history. So no stealth addresses needed for the merchant.

Seems pretty good as long as you don't do anything foolish to expose your amounts.  Or alternatively, I think you can just send some of your shadow tokens back to SDC and then use the SDC to pay the merchant and it seems just as anonymous.

But timing also plays a role as well.  Its probably best to have a pool of shadow long before you have to spend or transfer any back to SDC.  The longer you wait before changing back to SDC, the more anonymous it seems to be. But as the network grows the anonymity will improve as its easier to blend in with the rest of the network.  Also if you have super large amounts of SDC, then this is going to stick out on the network, so better to keep transactions smaller.

Also, alternatively you could wash the funds by going into Shadow, then back to SDC at some future time.  You could prepare pockets of SDC ready to spend.  I find myself doing this with Bitcoin.  Cleaning the coins, then setting up a few pocket addresses that can be used for spending at different merchants without linking them together.  Then if there is any change in the pocket, you could send it back to Shadow stealth address.  Would there be any problems arising from this behavior?  Is it safe to send the change back to a stealth address that already contains shadow?  

But also it seems the more shadow that exists in the network the better the anonymity.  So it may be healthy for the network if we all keep a good percentage of our coins in Shadow all the time.