Abstract - We introduce Shadowcash, an anonymous cryptographic transaction protocol: Anonymous transactions are implemented using traceable ring signatures, which utilise a noninteractive zero knowledge proof.
If for example SDC was vulnerable to a double spending bug, the attacker could only sell for BTC. So the attacker could clear the order book and remove that BTC amount that was on the SDC from the exchange.
If the attacker rolled back their deposit, only our SDC would be insolvent. If a user used our exchange and did not participate in the SDC exchange they should not be at risk.
But if I’m missing something please clarify, I appreciate the input.
You’re on the right track. It sounds like you would plan to seize users’ SDC if you are attacked. I guess that’s one option, but I was thinking that the exchange would pay for damages, and instead of taking the SDC from users who were not involved in the attack. Either way, it would be pretty bad for reputation. This sort of thing has happened to other exchanges with other coins.
Sounds like you’ve done your research on the source code for this coin. Good thinking.
Our developers are in different time zones, so we have decided to try to have someone watching the logs and watching the news at all times over the next few days to react immediately in case there is an issue.
If there was an attack, it would likely be staged on Bittrex since their volume is much greater. If they did attack our users we would cover much as their loses as we could afford.
We did code review and we believe it is safe, but only time will tell.