Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread (Read 317736 times)

Hi all Moon Bros, I updated the information on my website, now it directs and recommends wallet 0.17

mooncoin.vip

any suggestion of content for the website is welcome

Mooncoiners need lucidity in the community, for more than 2 years the telegram group mooncoineco only serves for gossip and lies. I don't need to list too many facts, I will mention just 3 facts that already show how wrong the telegram group's attitude is against the pioneers of the ANN currency.


#The absolute majority of the 62B was owned by Mooncoin ANN veterans, all of whom are in favor of burning these coins.

#Vasillis was able to give security to the community by being able to lock the coin in an address, keeping them away from people with bad intentions. Even so, he was slandered to the point of leaving the community.

#ANN pioneers managed to correct several flaws thanks to Chekaz's new 0.18 wallet (the 0.17 wallet took so long to be ready and there was no correction of critical flaws, this posture is very doubtful)


Anyone who still has doubts, just start comparing the facts presented in the ANN Mooncoin with the information without facts presented in the mooncoineco telegram.
What makes a person spend years trying to manipulate and 'own' a decentralized currency through lies and gossip? Since you disagree so much with ANN pioneers, it would be wiser to use your time to create a new currency and develop projects based on it. For years there are thousands of cryptocoins, I have already invested in several that I ended up selling for not agreeing with the community or for seeing that the currency has no future. You have already spent more than 2 years trying to transform ANN members into Mexican soap opera characters, how much more time are you willing to waste?

It is evident that most Mooncoiners credit ANN pioneers, and not a telegram group who spends his life conspiring. Want proof? At the time of this posting 54.5% of Mooncoin users are using the 0.18 wallet as recommended by pioneering ANNs, 31.8% have not yet upgraded and still use the old 0.13 wallet and only 13.6% were innocent and uninformed to point of installing version 0.17.

The new MOONCOIN ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236362.new#new

MOON is now listed on unnamed.exchange
https://www.unnamed.exchange/Exchange?market=MOON_BTC

The new MOONCOIN ANN thread is here MOON Fans!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236362.new#new

There were really some plans about official Foundation in 2015, but later it became clear that it would be better for a decentralised project if there are no companies/official entities behind it, that the community decides things and not just a group of old supporters. However, the ANN thread was already started and was quite active. Several times I asked Bitcointalk  mods to change the name of my account. If I created a new account, I would not be able to update the original post of the thread with up to date information. During years there was a disclosure in the original post about my nickname, that there was no official foundation.
I never was and never tried to be a Mooncoin leader. I was updating the original post of this ANN thread according to my understanding of consensus, fairness, ethics, recommendations of trusted members of the community.

The model of Mooncoin development was quite unique and truly decentralised: the community of investors, and tech devs who worked, receiving donations from the community for implementing things, approved by the community, at the same time a tech dev was not just a 'hired' persons, he had his voice, his view and initiatives, and community was listening to his recommendations. There also were active supporters, who represented interests of community by connecting devs to community, or by promoting Mooncoin, by making their channels, groups.
This model, without a dev team and any leader was well balanced and decentralised, it had its own risks, but it was cost of fairness, real decentralisation and true progress according to interests of community.
On the contrary, another, more typical for the most of coins model with an official dev team very often is not so well balanced and not so decentralised like they claim. Dev teams have leaders, duties, formal agreements, roadmaps, but what is more important: they have their own interests and are able technically to impose them to community. Dev teams control Githubs, they decide and make releases. With a dev team there is absolutely another spirit, people feel like they just depend on a dev team and have not to contribute anything by themselves, and often there is no parity, there are politics, bosses, cynicism, biases. Any official dev team means a center. If implemented into a decentralised, 'with no center' crypto project, the model can easily become hypocritical.

The name 'Foundation' turned out to be not good for a decentralised project, it led to perception that someone is a 'boss', or that there is some group which decides things, that was just a bias, anyway. Moreover, I was told that other persons spoke on behalf of 'Foundation' at other channels. I confirm that I communicate only at Bitcointalk, and all messages, posts, announcements, made somewhere else under 'Mooncoin Foundation' are not mine, and were not authorised by me.  In 2015-2017 words 'Mooncoin Foundation' were used unofficially to unite members with more than 1 billion MOON, and that was great. But then old good times passed, and now it is important to be exact to avoid misunderstanding, split of chain and community.

We discussed it with old community members, and we came to the conclusion that the best decision would be to start a new ANN thread, not under a name 'Mooncoin_Foundation', due to the fact that there is no official Foundation behind Mooncoin project. It will be better for perception, and will be a step to the future.

The true history of Mooncoin development, the truth about 62B, SmartLikes, the situation with 0.17 and 0.18:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54113024
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53974582

I'm still thinking about accusations which were already made on the last pages of this thread. My proposal  was about an independent dev who could be a peacemaker for the entire community.
It is very sad to see the split of community, bad emotions, accusations, untrue statements, but if someone makes them, it means that something is wrong. During 2015-2016 years Mooncoin ANN thread was a good place with positive emotions, interesting suggestions, normal critics, disputes, there was a big friendly community, unfortunately since 2017 something changed.

Accusations? Again? From the Mooncoin Core Team? They should stop making accusations and focus only on development instead, if that's really what they want, or definitely leave, as you already proposed to them...

I can only guess that they are waiting for exchanges, when they open their MOON wallet for deposits.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon is on 0.17.1 and it shows which pools mine Mooncoin and what the current block count is.
Prohashing block explorer https://prohashing.com/explorer/Mooncoin/ is also on 0.17.1.

Is there any issue in these pools ? I ask if you know something.

https://miningpoolstats.stream/mooncoin
Mining pool stats
Mining-dutch.nl, hash-to-coins are on 0.17.1 and mine,
Prohashing, Aikapool, Zergpool are on 0.17.1 and don't mine currently.

There was one more accusation, that in Jan, 2020 there was an announcement at Telegram about a new release,
and ChekaZ and Peter started to work after that,  'to compete'?


here is Bitcointalk, September, 2019:


here is Bitcointalk, November, 2019:



December, 2019



From these posts you can see that ChekaZ started to work in September, 2019,  it was transparently announced and supported by community members, in November and December of 2019 there was  MoonWord release, positive reaction of community, no one was against it, there was a request for SmartLikes.

Edit:
there were so many false accusations and untrue statements during last pages of this thread, that it would take a lot of time to answer them all with providing each time a proof that they are false.  Not to bring that all to a new thread, I will just edit this post, when I have time, in a neutral way, without unconfirmed statements, just with facts, proven  with citations.

First of all, it was not me who started Mooncoin. The Mooncoin project was announced first by deaconboogie on Dec, 28, 2013 and here is an original ANN thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annmoon-mooncoin-you-know-where-its-headed-kgw-exploit-fixed-432014-389403.
I am not a tech dev, I am not able to code in C,C+ and can read and understand the code only to a degree, after explanation. I was trying in the past to compile a wallet, but I don't know how to do it with no issues, basically I can say that I am not able to compile a wallet,I never was given any Mooncoin Github credentials, never coded, never released Mooncoin wallets at Github. I am not a miner, never mined even 1 Mooncoin, I am not familiar and not affiliated with admins of mining pools, exchanges, online wallets, block explorers.

The original Mooncoin code was audited in 2014-2015 by Titan, a dev of Luckycoin, after Dec, 2014 thefts. He did not find security issues in the code. Mooncoin was quite famous in 2014-2015, many tech persons kept an eye on it, no one reported security issues.

When the community asked to start a new Mooncoin thread (the original ANN thread contained outdated info after an original dev left), my understanding was that Mooncoin code was secure (there was some concern about compiled binaries from original dev, that is why walletbuilders were asked to compile new binaries without any change of original code).
I always was asking Mooncoin devs to check it for security again and again.
Recently there was a hint from mebagger2 that there were instructions to compile 0.13.9 wallet without auditing its code.
From my PMs to mebagger2 (sent to his previous account mebagger in Nov, 2017):


In 2016 a dev barrysty1e came on his own initiative (he definitely was not just a contractor like walletbuilders, but he really asked for donations from the community). He did a lot for Mooncoin, suggested and implemented some features (fast sync, Balloon hash, MoonRush, Moon SPV) on his own initiative,  he was communicating at Bitcointalk and at Discord, was instructed by community members from Bitcointalk and Discord (I communicated with barrysty1e and connected him to community members who wanted to donate him, the same was when I communicated with Vassilis, a dev who came later again not just to compile a wallet or to code the feature, but as a new responsible Mooncoin dev to stay with Mooncoin over long term).
Everything was done with the consensus of community, and notonly with consensus, it was with full 100% or 99% consensus (only one person sometimes did not agree with some things, and Discord community members did not agree with Blue Moon logo, that is why barrysty1e used their own Mooncoin logo in the wallet release, though Bitcointalk community liked more Blue Moon logo, also I personally asked him to implement SmartLikes, but devs worked not on my individual instructions, otherwise SmartLikes could be implemented much earlier, at least in 2017). Though Vassilis really said he was going to implement SL in the future.
I was waiting and hoped that finally SL would be implemented. It was very interesting for me to see how this tech would work. When finally it was implemented by ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell in 2020! after many years and during all these years community members were asking for that, I was accused that it was done to compete with MooncoinCore team, and/or with other bad intentions. While during all these years I never stated that I was a leader, and my understanding always was that Mooncoin was and had to be community-driven with equal opportunities for all supporters, without any center.

Barrysty1e sometimes was blamed for his protection against move of stolen coins which did not work, however, if there were no protection at all, the situation would be the same in 2018, the problem was that coins were moved, if there were no protection, they would be moved as well, the situation would be just the same. The code was open source and any tech person could read it and suggest how to improve the protection, there were no suggestions. We believed it worked. However, the fact that the protection did not work and that on Jan, 2018 coins were moved to the address of Vassilis, which he transparently posted in his signature at Bitcointalk led to accusations and suspicions. Let's imagine there were no protection at all and coins were moved. There would be accusations as well obviously. So, the problem was not the protection itself, but the fact that these coins exist, that there is big quantity and that if they are removed from supply, it will be good for Mooncoin. My understanding is that rightful owners of these coins agreed to remove them out of supply (by the way, a major owner of these coins who agreed to lose them for the sake of community - agswinner was accused for his decision - that' he decides things').

It is possible to remove coins out of supply whether with coin lock (freeze, protection against unauthorised move which is not irreversible and can be removed with community decision in the future) or with coin burn (destroying the coins). Though initially, in 2018 I thought that coin burn would be better, now I don't support this idea until there is 100% warranty that there would not be any risks with it. Coin burn without a private key is a dangerous precedent, it can be safe technically, but it's not great for perception of blockchain, it affects the entire idea of blockchain.
A better solution probably could be coin lock. BTW, it was done in 0.18.1, with no luck, due to difference in consensus rules with 0.17 (which was released after 0.18) and due to an issue with locked transactions, derived from 0.13.9. Moreover, if even minor part of community does not agree with that, it is not a proper solution, things like coin lock require 100% consensus obviously or there could be accusations like it happened with 0.18.1. I confirm that I never sent to ANY dev OUTPUTS, INPUTS, TRANSACTIONS to lock, never knew and still don't know Michi's address. You never informed me about critical vulnerability in Mooncoin wallet before I told you at the beginning of Feb, 2020 that ChekaZ  discovered it. Even when he released an optional wallet with MoonWord, based on 0.13.9, in Nov, 2019, no one warned that the 0.13 codebase (which was in use since 2017) was insecure. You may want to prove the opposite with a screenshot of messages, or remove false statements.

There was a request about transparency, here is chronology of events 2017-2020:

November-December, 2017
Barrysty1e is not active after completing like he promised Mooncoin wallet with Balloon hash instead of Scrypt. The wallet was not ideal though.

After polemarhos888 found a new dev, Vassilis, Vassilis created a new MooncoinCore Github to develop Mooncoin, mebagger2 advisedto use Scrypt instead of Balloon, that was inspired by him earlier and pre-announced by him when the new 0.13.9 release was ready.


I did help connect Vassilis with the community (however, Vassilis was 'my' or 'our'  dev not more than Mich i or Mebagger) and it was one of the best periods in Mooncoin history when a dev and Mooncoin community  worked together.

There were issues with 0.13.9 and Vassilis worked to fix them, with help of community members:


Jan, 5, 2018, there was a tragic day in Mooncoin history,
62B were sent to Vassillis to the address he posted at Bitcointalk, protection did not stop it. There is a detailed research:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.38039860
Coins from 'locked' addresses were movedto other addressesfor the first time on March, 3 - in 2017, months before Vassilis came as a dev. Now we know that barrysty1e's protection was not in the consensus rules.

The community voted to burn these coins, I also believed that coins had to be burned and suggested that coins had whether to be sent to a burn address, or to stay on their address (even if Vassilis would send coins to authorities, there could be a panic that coins were moved, also taking into account possible PC security issues, a safer solution in that case would be to move a hard disk with coins, and not coins from one address to another, to do it without even opening and syncing the wallet) some people talked about legal issues with coin burn, Vassillis decided to consult with lawyers what to do with coins and to burn no coins until he is sure there will be no legal issues and to leave Bitcointalk and development. I was never informed that anyone, except Vassilis, got an access to these coins, physical or non-physical.
After leaving development, months later, Vassillis gave MooncoinCore Github credentials to polemarhos888, a Mooncoin volunteer and investor, who found Vassillis before, and on June 7, 2018 polemarhos888 informed me via PM that he had sent these credentials of MooncoinCore Github to Mebagger.


On Jun, 11, 2018 I have sent to mebagger2 through PM a detailed description of SmartLikes technology to implement it.

On April, 9, 2019 ChekaZ  spoke to me for the first time and asked if we would like to implement Mooncoin integration into coinkit.de.  

From my PM to mebagger2 on Jun, 10, 2019,  after I was told about possible move of Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake algo:


3. It was important to be on one chain and get more chainwork to be sure that 0.13.9 with vulnerability is no longer main version, but at the same time follows a main chain. Pools and exchanges updated to 0.18 before launch of 0.17. It was recommended to mine 0.18 and not old 0.13, to move hashpower from the insecure 0.13 version to 0.18.

4. Then, on March, 1 - 0.17 supporters used about 1,000 Ghs to mine 0.17,
https://i.imgur.com/uJVhR8i_d.jpg?maxwidth=5000
as a result 0.13.9 joined 0.17, but due to that 0.18 was left alone on a separate chain, because it had coin lock (frozen address feature) in the consensus, while 0.17 removed all protection (they told they were going to burn coins later, and accused that frozen address feature was implemented with bad intentions, but if they would make a new wallet with coin burn, they could easily remove frozen address feature in the new wallet, so what's the point? 0.18 only tried to add additional, though not 100% protection, while 0.17 does not have protection against unauthorised move of coins at all).

5. It turned out that 0.18 had an issue with locked transactions, derived from 0.13.9, it could be fixed with the fork, and historical validation could be added as well, like it was planned, however, one more fork would not be a good solution, especially in the atmosphere of misunderstanding, suspicions and accusations. Also followers of 0.17 could lose their coins by using a wallet on a separate chain.
To avoid split of community and mess with separate chains .17 was chosen:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54050237
However, both 0.17 and 0.18 were not ideally presented.

During 2 years after Mebagger came as a dev, we all were waiting for him and were thinking that there was ongoing  development. And after 2 years why not listen to experts, if  ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell were happy to assist.
To be fair, Mebagger was answering my messages and questions, especially before 2019 as I can see now from my PM history when doing the research. I don't know what exactly happened between him and ChekaZ, looks like it was a conflict due to disagreement about how to better fix the vulnerability.

ChekaZ gave to Mebagger an opportunity to audit the code before the release (here is a proof, provided by ChekaZ: https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium ), my understanding is that the code is open source and even if it is in public repo, not private one, it can be audited, commited, all issues could be reported before the update of wallet at pools and exchanges.
However, there was no answering, no reaction after Feb, 6, then, when pools and exchanges updated to 0.18 as it was not too much time left to the fork block (which was expected on Feb, 22), on Feb, 19, the 0.17 was released and after that all this flow of false accusations started, not only against me, and that had to be answered.

You did ask to build features on top of 0.17, but it was before I told you that ChekaZ found the vulnerability. ChekaZ told  you did not show the 0.17 code to him before the release.  There was no proof (except talks  and empty promises since 2018) that the 0.17 release was almost ready.

In your PM on Feb, 3 you said that as long as the vulnerability is fixed you're 'totally in agreement' with us, and in your PM from Feb, 4 you agreed with a hard fork 'to push older clients off the network', and even advised how to present 0.18 version:
ChekaZ informed me in Jan, 2020 about the vulnerability and that it was there for years, and luckily there was no attack, but if you know about it and how dangerous it is, the only way is to fix it immediately, if we care about people, about the project. No other way.
You did not inform me about the vulnerability when you discovered it in 2019 or earlier, and did not fix it before 2020.
And in 2020 after Chekaz reported it, at least several persons knew about it, and there was no 100% privacy of communication. Any delay with the release would not be good. The vulnerability was fixed in 0.18 according to 2 -step solution (to avoid split of chain) from Peter Bushnell and ChekaZ before updating at pools and exchanges.
My understanding is that you did not like the fact that those experts (they were independent experts, the solution was suggested, designed and implemented by them  without any advice from us) did not approve your solution which you discussed with ChekaZ, and that you wanted to deliver finally your wallet, no matter with the split of chain or not, while Taranis (as it looked from his posts in March) thought in terms of competition
and  did not accept that it would look like after 2 years his team did not provide a secure wallet, while another dev (ChekaZ) did it. Meanwhile we were waiting for your 'green light' for 0.18.
On Feb, 9 you received the 0.18 code for review from ChekaZ (https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium), you were informed about its main features in advance though.
Finally after several days of no collaboration from you (it looked like the irrational delay was not due to your review, but due to disagreement from Taranis who didn't understand all risks of vulnerability and risk  of chain split with your solution, though ChekaZ said he tried to explain that to him before the release,
finally we decided to make a step, there was an upcoming fork block, the vulnerability had to be fixed immediately and with a safe solution, recommended and provided by the experts. The 2-step solution (1st step, restoring validation with the fork block to let people safely update, 2nd step restoring historical validation without split of chain) turned out to be an ideal target for accusations, as soon as the 1st step is done it is so easy and effective to accuse that the version is 'insecure', 'incomplete', while another version is fully secure (with a split of chain though).
You understood that we were going to fix the vulnerability asap and that there was upcoming fork block in the code (ChekaZ even changed it, waiting for you and recompiled all binaries, including Mac, Linux), but to avoid a leak of information about the vulnerability it would not be a good decision to delay the release and change the fork block again and again.
What could you do if you didn't agree with the version: to inform me about your concerns, to send a list of issues to me or to ChekaZ, to post at Bitcointalk your disagreement after posts from ChekaZ and me about the upcoming release (those posts did not announce vulnerability), to agree with experts, with their  2-step solution. What you did: you stopped communicating with me after my question:
and only on Feb, 19 you suddenly released 0.17, after 0.18 was adopted by pools, and just as experts warned, your solution without setting a fork block height, without 2 steps led to the split of chain and mess. And after that  0.18 was accused of the mess.  
Another accusation was that SmartLikes was implemented with monetary interests.
Community members had been asking and waiting for SL since 2017 or even earlier very actively, with numerous posts. And the entire idea of technology is 'likes'-based system, Mooncoin for Mooncoin, which is rather non-monetary as it could work even if Mooncoin would have no markets at all.
Dogecoin and Elon Musk won't care about Mooncoin.
The project has to create its own value and not hope for someone else, rich and famous.
I don't see another way to defend ideas of SL and the truth, now I must stop my support for SmartLikes, until accusations of 'monetary' interests are deleted and until the community confirms that SmartLikes is implemented on request of the entire community.

For more information please read this post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53974582

Competing teams is a myth, there never was a Bitcointalk team, there is Bitcointalk community, not team.
The absurdity of idea that it was about 'competition', all know that we always were saying 'You are welcome' to devs and teams who were going to develop Mooncoin, added information about them to Bitcointalk topic (try it with another famous coin, and you'll see the difference) though when devs did not care about the project for long time and there were serious risks for users, exchange, pools, there was no choice.
It was necessary to fix vulnerability asap, after all, it is fixed now. That could be done in a much better way, if there were more communicating and less suspicions and accusations.  

I was thinking about some accusations, that there were 'individual instructions' and not the consensus thing. Anyway, when a dev codes a wallet, he does it whether after his own decision, whether after receiving instructions from other members. Instructions can be public, made by different community members via posting at forum, or instructions can be sent via PM, by a member who is a 'bridge' between the community and a dev.  However, if the community agrees with something, asks for it, waits for it, if it is evident for everyone that something is good for the entire community, is it correct to say about 'individual instructions', even if finally these instructions were sent to a dev in a PM by one person who connected a dev and the community?
Another accusation was that things should not be voted at forum, but should be presented to miners via miners or users activated fork. Maybe it works for big coins like DOGE, LTC or BTC. But if there are about 50-80 nodes like in Mooncoin network and we understand that miners mine a coin mostly to sell it at exchanges and are not very well informed about a situation with Mooncoin, and one user can run easily 10 nodes, can we say that miners or users activated fork means community consensus and fair voting exactly in this case?
It worked in this way: community members were asked via posts in the thread and via PM about their decision and a dev was informed, or a dev asked other members by himself, via posting or via PM, some devs communicated also at Discord and got instructions from Discord community members. If even minority of members don't agree with something, for me it is always a sign that something is wrong. However, if I remember correct, until the last events, the only disagreement in the community about what to implement was about Mooncoin logo.

Maybe their project is good, but it's said it is about 'crypto-businesses', while Mooncoin never was a 'crypto business'.

I think that it's positive for Moon. 

I received this note, if it matters.

“ Hi there,

My name is Vadim (@zolotokrylin) and I am the CEO and co-founder of @holdexHQ.

A little background on Holdex: since our launch last year, our community of crypto-enthusiasts has grown to 300,000+ users. We have built the first user acquisition network for crypto-businesses, after discovering that many crypto-projects, including wallets such as yours, found acquiring real crypto-users time-consuming and expensive.

In the spirit of helping businesses such as yours to grow their user base, we have released the Holdex Marketplace, where you can list your crypto-project for free. From there you will be showcased to our community and benefit from a number of tools and ways to leverage it.

As our aim is to have the best Crypto-businesses in our Marketplace, we would like to invite you to list on Holdex at your earliest convenience.

What do you say?”

thx a lot