Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 3. (Read 317677 times)

You're going too far here and my advice to you is to check your language.

I AM VERY SERIOUS AND I DON’T TRUST YOU!

SO, IF YOU ARE A FAIR PERSON WITHOUT ANY HIDDEN INTEREST, PUT IT DOWN AND FOLLOW THE SAME SUGGESTION MF GAVE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A LIAR!

Thank you? Seriously? Thank you for what?

You are thanking the person that is responsible for the blocking of 1,500 transactions but doesn't know who's coins are blocked. None knows how many coins are blocked nor how many wallets are blocked, 

It took a senior developer to find out that her coins were blocked.

Do YOU know if YOUR coins are blocked?

You talk of transparency. How transparent is Mooncoin Foundation?

You then edit to say you expect the same from our team.  It was OUR team that found out that coins other than the 62+12 were blocked. Is your type of transparency one that keeps these things hidden?

We found that out because WE were looking into how both wallets could be combined. Through all this crap WE are still working on a suitable solution.

And WE ARE TRANSPARENT.

Did you not know there was a .17 release is that what you are saying?


It is open source and the Github has been available. You know how many requests we received to collaborate on the github project... zero. So why people are getting worked up about delays is a puzzle for sure. If anyone including the user mooncoin_foundation wanted to contribute something they certainly could have. Please show me your history of coding and testing over the last two years and those merge attempts that were denied by well anyone.


I have been very responsive. I almost always respond to polarm the same day or the same hour. I have been very responsive to the user mooncoin_foindation and agswinner. The only time there were delays or non-responsiveness is when I was sent inflammatory messages. If I were to PM you an inflammatory message and then watched the clock to grade you on responsiveness and didn't get a response... Is the problem with my message or your responsiveness?


We were handed a product that didn't work properly, which was based on an older product which also didn't work properly, which was based on an initial build that wasn't done properly. There are many things that could happen but didn't. I don't know what you are talking about as far as a new chain. Do you know that syncing the blockchain takes time like days of time? And syncing the blockchain takes with debugging takes longer? And then interpreting Gigabytes of logs takes time? And this is done in spare time, so it takes time to complete a proper fix. So as the problem was there from the start and for years and years no one 'mine the total supply of MOON with low difficulty', why would that suddenly change? What did we do? We fixed the issue fully without announcing it until the fixed version was on a mining pool. What did you do? Announce the security issue and not fix it in a competing version and pushed it on mining pools and exchanges. I don't know why you did this reckless action but I did request that you build your new features on our base.



I know .18 is insecure. There is a secure release available .17. The .18 client created a sidechain that is being mined due to blocking transactions instead of burning coins from a specific wallet. I fully agree, don't mine that insecure sidechain join the .17 miners and we can work on releasing a .18.5 that works properly. An insecure chain has zero value and currently, people mining .18 are mining an insecure chain.

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

Ok, I will prove that I am not a boss and that I am not personally interested.
My suggestion to the community:
to invite an independent dev, not ChekaZ , not MooncoinCore devs.
This dev had to be experienced, responsible, trusted, and with respect to decentralisation,
with respect to Mooncoin history and looking into the future,
and not affiliated with current devs, and not affiliated with agswinner and me.

He will start his own Bitcointalk ANN thread, Telegram channel and will unite the community.
I will not participate in important questions when I see that Mooncoin development is in trusted hands, and Mooncoin will remain decentralised with volunteers.
There will be another Bitcointalk ANN thread, and I will be just a topic starter of inactive thread obviously.

Of course, I am still responsible, if coins of normal members were locked by mistake in 0.18, but it had to be proved with research. No one, except Michi, reported it before, or show me a post. After the research and comments from ChekaZ we will know the truth.

In my post above and before I have stated there were a number of vulnerabilities. WE fixed the CE issue. WE found out what had happened by our own volition and WE added that to the list of work that had to be done to fix ALL issues. All the while you offered no support whatsoever. Noone in ANN offered any support whatsoever.  


You comment about "also" shows where the problem lies. Namely that you want your own domain and anyone else will be seen as a competitor. Why did you not at any stage offer funds to widen the team and help the blockchain reach the goal of security? Why did younset about building your own Github?
You knew we needed both funds and to widen the team as I had specifically told you in a number of Private Messages here in ANN.
I have been in constant contact with Agswinner over the last two years. I thought we had a working relationship that would help Mooncoin. Instead we saw the rushed release of 0.18 and the resultant mess that we have now.

The risk was always there and someone was exploiting it. We did everything to secure Mooncoin in the face of an obstinate stakeholder group.  

What we have now are three chains. One chain has blocked 1,500 transactions, which affect many members wallets and we don't know who they are. They could be any member of this community. It is your responsibility to fix that and supply a timescale for it happening.

Incidentally, and this has been conveyed more than once by Michi and Mebagger, we found this out during the process of looking into how we could join 0.18 with 0.17 for the long term benefit of Mooncoin. We have never seen disparate groups, we have done everything possible to bring everyone together.  

I never "said anything against smartlikes".  I have no idea where that even came from. But I have no idea where a lot of things came from at this point.

 I said that they weren't being prioritized, on our side, over fixing and securing the chain. That's all. If that is "against", then we have bigger problems.

This crap about 13.9 being in "our hands" - look, 13.9 was *done* when we started work. There's a REASON we abandoned most of its code and rebased it. This accusation of "Well, you didn't fix 13.9 so you can't talk!" - 13.9's codebase wasn't worth salvaging. We tried, we turned around - that's part of why things took as long as they did.

This isn't a sporting event. But M_F and fans are still vying for "the win" it seems.  If ANN is the entirety of the community, and we're doing consensus by forum posts and votes vs the actual f*ing blockchain (UASF/MASF) - and said community is happy with a "bounty-for-demanded-development" model, then maybe you're all perfectly happy with the house of cards you're building. And it IS a house of cards. Not a "foundation".

What do you guys think I even have to gain by speaking out in here?  My holdings are locked, and I've certainly not been personally enriched off of this.  I'm only here because I've been involved since the Deaconboogie days, believed in the community with its close crossover with Dogecoin, and wanted to help out.

But, hey! You're INVESTORS. Maybe it'll get a "PUMP SIGNAL!!" before it all falls apart. "Lambos" and what not. People who think that "The Wolf of Wall Street" is some kind of aspirational story, not a warning about a downfall.

But go ahead, keep paying bounties to mercenaries to implement hot buzzwords while no one persistent sticks around to do the maintenance. Because maintenance isn't sexy.

This is exactly why we're so slow to release over at Dogecoin.  We know a huge economy is riding on our changes and if we move too recklessly it'll hurt a lot of people.

EDIT: Yeah, M_F I get it, we weren't "fast enough" for you.  OK, Boss.

Could you show a post with an announcement of 0.17 at Bitcointalk?
Link to Github?
If you say that the project is open source regarding MooncoinCore  Github,
are you fine with working at MooncoinCommunity Github? It is also open source.

Also it is not so simple like you explain. First of all, agswinner and me contacted mebagger2 many times during these 2 years. He rarely answered though.

What is more important, you knew about the vulnerability for months. You did not fix it.
With this vulnerability someone COULD suddenly come and mine the total supply of MOON with low difficulty,
do you realize? Anyone, if you would be informed about the vulnerability,
what would you do? Obviously, fix and update immediately.
However, if you actually don't care about the project itself, you are okay with it. Let someone come and mine all billions. We just will accuse others for that and will make a swap to a new chain? No, this approach is unprecedented. If it would be just a mistake, or a normal delay, I would never speak about it.
Edit: another situation, 0.18 released, like you it or not, why release 0.17 after that, and make another chain? Again the same approach.
You believe it is unsecure? Come and fix it. Why make another chain after launch of 0.18? If everything is open source?
It is the approach, the project risks very much. That is the point.

If you read above you'll know that address and transaction are in this instance interchangeable. Wallet holds both addresses and transactions.

I think you need to go and research what open source means.

We have been working on Mooncoin and set up a separate testnet so we wouldn't adversely impact the existing chain while our work was ongoing. You're not technically minded so I'll put it in layman's terms.
To fix Mooncoin meant breaking it. Going way back to the beginning to find out why things were happening that shouldn't, fix those, move on, fix the next one. Sometimes the fix impacted other issues so we had to scrap the work and start again. Slowly but surely the whole blockchain was gone through and every issue we could find was fixed one by one.
Michi has stated this many times, it's not sexy like Smart Likes, it's doesn't have baubles like Moonword. It's essential work that very few people understand and care less about. All people like you want to see is big announcements with associated price rises.  
What we have done is fix and secure so that in future, real work can happen in the full knowledge that whatever project is built on Mooncoin won't fail due to insecurity.

Once all that was done and complete we made stakeholders aware of it (0.17) with a month's advance notice(January 12th).  It was a month later that 0.18 was rushed out (Peter Bushnell confirmed he was contacted mid January to build 0.18.

All of this was done while we had our own jobs to do. All of the work that was done on 0.17 was done for no pay whatsoever.

And all the while I was in contact with many people, YOU included, to foster partnerships in many spheres to have future projects for Mooncoin.

It certainly cannot be said that the Mooncoin project is a dead project, on the contrary! Alive and kicking! 6 pages of bitcoin talk forum in 2 days! Wow

Now a tech question by a non-tech person.

Michi wrote this: "Is there a reason why on Feb. 7, in a commit for the 0.18 build, changes are made to 0.18 (before its release) to block *my personal wallet* along with the 62 billion mooncoin?"

Please, can someone explain the difference between 'ADDRESS' and 'WALLET' and 'TRANSACTION'. My logic is confused.

Thanks

No need to research. Chekaz posted a link to Github where a list of almost 1,500 transactions were blocked.  You commissioned the work, you find out why it was done and report back to the community. Then you do everything you can to put matters right.

0.13.9 is open source, I'm sure you understand what open source means? I have on many occasions asked for collaboration throughout my time in Mooncoin. I have specifically asked you and Agswinner in PM in here and in Telegram, I have sought same in Telegram and Discord generally and through PM. I contacted other stakeholders through Twitter and Facebook.  There can be no excuse for pointing fingers at a team who has consistently sought collaboration across Mooncoin yet refused it time and again.

If that collaboration was given we would be a lot further forward than we are today, one person wouldn't try to be in control, and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in just now with three chains and members coins blocked for no reason.

Yes, I understand very well. It was also under YOUR control   do you see around other devs involved?  

Edit: in the last two years?

Do you understand what "under control" means? 0.13.9 is open source, ANYONE can access it. It has never been "in our hands".

I already explained about Foundation many times. There is a disclosure in the OP for years.
However, it looks like I am not alone here.
Why do you accuse even without a research? Michi explained already, that transactions, not addresses could be locked in the wallet. It is a technical question, to lock 3 addresses, a dev deals with transactions of these addresses.

Do you deny, that MooncoinCore Github is under control of MooncoinCore team?

Hi Marc, you CAN'T write that! Your devs did not developed 0.13.9 but had it in their hands since 2018. Period!

So who's responsible? Me? MF? Agswinner?

Who needs to research when it was a deliberate act by one of three people. You claim it wasn't you, Peter Bushnell has stated he was given the transactions, that leaves Chekaz, who still hasn't responded. I, along with other members of my team, HAVE discussed it with Peter Bushnell, who confirmed he was given the transactions to block. You commissioned and paid for the work, you are wholly responsible for it. So you must now fix it and give complete transparency as to how it happened.


You claim a name of Foundation, a real Foundation is a group of people. By choosing the name Foundation you are implying you are a group of people and by attaching it to Mooncoin you give the impression you are a group of people that are acting for Mooncoin.

All work done under the guise of Mooncoin Core Development Team is our responsibility. We are not responsible for work done prior to our involvement.

And to clarify yet again, 0.13.9 was NEVER under our control.

There has been slow work, of that there is no, doubt. Many reasons for that as has been explained in earlier posts. One of the major reasons is lack of real support from major stakeholders. I gave you our plans by PM in a number of messages over the course of three and a half months from 11th November 2018 (contact initiated by me) yet you still refused to offer any kind of support. You let the narrative foster that our team was a competitor and should be regarded as such.

Edit:
SmartLikes could move Mooncoin to top coins over long term, would raise network hashrate significantly.
However, Michi said against it, Mebagger did not implement it (a detailed description of SL algo was sent to him in my PM on Jun, 11, 2018).
You don't understand it. For you it is just a 'feature'.
I was thinking on it during several years, beginning from the idea of ML ('Moonlite'). That was a dream that it could replace monetary interests with non-monetary,'likes'-based, Mooncoin for Mooncoin, even if there are no active markets at exchanges. Look at Mooncoin markets, now after 2 years of stagnation it's good if there is $100 volume per day. Which 'pump signal', or 'monetary interests' like you accused? To earn $1,000?
And it is a new tech, and of course theoretically there can be some issues with that, it's normal for something new. With a normal approach, that all could be developed and fixed.
It was implemented into the 0.18.1code by Peter Bushnell.
Not everyone can see its potential and how to use it in a proper way.
The community was waiting for the technology since 2017, there were numerous requests.

As for 12  billion from Dec, 2014 thefts, the consensus to lock these coins was much earlier than the consensus to lock 62b, in 2016. The thefts were significant, exchanges were informed about them, a dev  of Mooncoin in 2014 (peme) reported he had lost all his coins and left development after that, other known and trusted persons lost their coins, thefts affected their lives seriously. That would be extremely unfair to let a hacker to sell these coins and benefit at expense of victims. It was not just a 'whim' when people decided to block these coins when there was a chance in 2016. That indicated to hackers that the community would fight with them. There never was a consensus to unlock these coins, but they are unlocked in mebagger2's 0.17 release.

About Michi's locked transaction:


It was locked in 0.13.9 (which was based on barrysty1e's 0.13.3) and was released in 2017, before Michi came as a dev. Someone sent 1 Mooncoin to many addresses in this transaction. One of recepients was an address which was not legitimate. My understanding is that Mooncoin dev included this transaction (by mistake) when looking for
how to lock addresses with stolen funds, and some legitimate addresses could be affected.
No one instructed any dev to lock transactions, it'a tech question, a dev who codes finds a way how to freeze given addresses (reported by victims) technically. While the protection was in place, I asked available devs (including Mebagger) to review the code and no one reported that there was anything wrong with locked addresses.
However, the 0.13.9 code is open source and transparent, it is in MooncoinCore Github where mebagger2 released 0.17.
If MooncoinCore devs claim they are official and worked during 2 years, is it possible that they just did not read the 0.13.9 code and did not see which transactions/addresses were locked? If they did, then they knew about locked transactions, but then why accuse me that they were locked suddenly in a new 0.18 as a 'vindicative action' or as a 'whim'? It's all not about 'competition', it's about the truth. To discredit someone with false accusations is extremely unfair, and if it is just misunderstanding, why not correct your statements at least when the truth became evident? Accusations remain in the forum's history and people will read them  and think they are true if they don't have enough time for reading the whole story and making a research.



@mebagger2:
Didn't want to answer it, you posted it emotionally and I hoped you would just delete it,
that didn't happen,
not to leave false statements in the forum's history being not answered:

Here is a print screen, provided by ChekaZ:
https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

It's not true. In your PM sent to me on January 29, 2020 when I contacted you to collaborate with fix of vulnerability you asked me a question why I'm not in Marks (Taranis) team.
It's not me who started the blame game.
You posted that I delayed your release, to compete or to release an insecure wallet?
By the way, I din't code and didn't release anything and didn't have an access to any Mooncoin Github.
Why would we just need you on board  at all, if we wanted to do that?
You really delayed the release first with asking for SL stress tests, then with irrational disagreement with the safe solution from blockchain expert Peter Bushnell, then just with not answering.  Taking into account that so serious vulnerability had to be fixed immediately.
I said to you:


I did not know about the vulnerability before ChekaZ told me about it in late Jan, 2020
started to work on SmartLikes, was posting updates at Bitcointalk and at other channels, he told even Telegram community initially was glad to have him on board. You did not inform  me about vulnerability, I didn't know about it before ChekaZ informed me, it's unfair to blame me for not fixing it before. Moreover, you know that you asked to make additional stress tests for Smart Likes and that delayed the release. The 0.18 release was not mine, it was prepared by ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell (who consulted hundreds of forks), I did not give instructions how to fix the vulnerability, it was their initiative that the vulnerability had to be fixed fast and with their 2 step solution, not to split the chain.
My understanding is that you did not like the fact that those experts did not approve your solution which you discussed with ChekaZ, and that you wanted to deliver finally your wallet, while Taranis thought in terms of 'competition' and  did not accept that it would look like your team after 2 years did not provide the secure wallet, while other devs did it. Meanwhile we were waiting for your 'green light' for 0.18.1
Finally after several days of silence from you we decided to make a step, the vulnerability had to be fixed immediately and with a safe solution, recommended by the expert.

It was recommended by widely known and trusted expert Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder, normally anyone looking for collaboration would just agree with the expert, and if there are other minor issues, discovered by you, why not report them? 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 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).
It's unfair to accuse 0.18 of all this mess and discredit everyone who was involved with it in eyes of crypto community. If you wanted your 0.17 release, you could just discuss it with us, to show it to ChekaZ, transparently inform  what it will contain, announce it at Bitcointalk, everything could be solved via dialogue.
0.17 was on a separate chain before March, 1, when at your pool 100 times more than regular hashrate was used to make 0.17 a main chain, without this action the 0.17 would remain insecure, on a separate chain.
https://i.imgur.com/uJVhR8i_d.jpg?maxwidth=5000

How could it be possible even in the theory that 'we all have had physical access to the wallet' of Vassilis? Do you realize that we live in different countries, don't know each other in real life? Only polemarhos met Vassilis in real life, how could we all get a physical access to the wallet in question, even if imagine that we all would live in the same town?

I never said you built or released the 0.13 wallet. I said you were the reason barrysty1e's wallet with Balloon hash was not used and that you helped Vassilis. Only you andVassilis could know details of your collaboration. You said your contribution in 2017 was small. But when you replaced Vassilis about 2 years ago, in 2018, took over his Github with 0.13.9, was it not important for you to audit the code? We all were using this insecure wallet till Feb, 2020.  We all were not coders and were sure you're working, caring about it and we just trusted you.

And even before, from my PMs sent to your previous account 'mebagger':


I mentioned your contribution not to blame you or anyone. Before the tragic event with 62 B  it was one of the best periods in Mooncoin history when a dev and Mooncoin community  worked together.
The point was that 0.13.9 was a community thing, not only a dev thing. Someone found Vassilis, some members helped him with issues, someone was auditing the code, other people donated money to Vassilis. Not to blame Vassilis, either, but it is not fair to blame non tech members who donate money to devs and teams that they are responsible for their code after that.  
Vassilis and 0.13.9 were blamed for broken protection, but first move from 'frozen' addresses happened on March, 2017, months before Vassilis came. And why barrysty1e is blamed, if he did what he could. No one knows everything in crypto. And if there were no protection, coins could be moved as well.

About coin lock in 0.18, my understanding that coin burn without a private key would require a fork anyway, it means that coin lock never competes with coin burn (one who makes coin burn, easily removes coin lock in the release) coin lock just adds 'better than nothing' protection not to leave coins completely unprotected.  I thought we discussed it before the release, but you posted that you didn't understand why coin lock instead of coin burn.
From my PMs to you about coin lock:

No support? Coinexchange issue was not about the vulnerability with validation. It was a double spend while the hashrate was very low due to long stagnation with development. The fix of issue which you mentioned was the initiative of compensating (by agswinner) lost millions of MOON to Coinexchange for re-enabling Mooncoin wallet, deposits and withdrawals.
But you did help by contacting them and reducing the number of coins to pay. I thanked you for that and asked members about donations to your team.

My PM to Taranis (2018)

On  April, 2 in 2018 mebagger2 asked my opinion about your group, probably deciding to join you or not, and I told him that I didn't know you, however, Mooncoin was decentralised and any team was welcome until it did good things.