Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 4. (Read 317736 times)

Why so immediately?
Even without a research?
Your team first accused me that I am just a name, then that I am responsible for six years of Mooncoin development.
The truth is that the community invited devs and community members donated money for their work and some members participated in their work, not only from Bitcointalk community.
Devs were different. Barrysty1e was quite an independent dev, and was close to Discord community.
Vassilis also collaborated with Discord community, not only with Bitcointalk. He also had his own opinion and did not burn 62B how it was instructed by the community. My understanding that only he has an access to the wallet with 62B. He posted and confirmed that this is his address. How do you think, if he was so shocked that stopped development after receiving 62B, would he give an access to his wallet to someone else?

I never instructed to lock 1,500 transactions. It is a technical question, and I am not a tech person.
Discuss tech question with tech people. Whether 0.18 secure or not. If Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder believes it is secure, why should I trust you and not him?

I only know that in the first half of 2018 Vassilis sent Github credentials to polemarhos and he sent them to Mebagger2. Mebagger2 is part of MooncoinCore team, 0.13.9 is at MooncoinCore Github. People have been using it for 2 years. Who is responsible for issues with the wallet? Me, not a tech person, or devs who keep a wallet at their Github and they said they worked hard all these 2 years how to improve this wallet.
However, the fact is that in Feb, 2020 the 0.13.9 wallet which pools, exchanges, users used, and which was under control of MooncoinCore team since 2018, had a big vulnerability with validatiom, which allowed an attacker to mine blocks fast with low difficulty,
to mine billions of MOON in a very short period of time. You told you knew about it, but you did not fix it till Feb, 2020.

The community expects full disclosure.

Who instructed the blocking of 1,500 transactions, who carried it out, what exactly will be done to bring those coins back to their rightful owners.

And it must be done immediately.

This response is so pitiful it doesn't warrant an answer.

All it does is to serve my point that a very small group see themselves as gatekeepers in Mooncoin and anyone else attempting progress is seen as a competitor.

You confirmed my point.

So, I guess I should chime in here. I thought we were working on creating a wallet of version .18.5 which would offer mooncoin users security and new features like MLikes and Moonword. I just wanted to take a minute to summarize where we are currently.

https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> This version is insecure


chain v.18
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet  --> This version is insecure but has features like MLikes and Moonword that user mooncoin_foundation has paid for and wants to be included in a wallet

chain v.17
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0  --> this version validates the full blockchain and purges the network of invalid blocks

As agreed we began work on creating a .18.5 wallet. While checking the compatibility of .17 and .18 wallets we discovered the Michi's wallet was marked as a bad transaction and that this could be affecting any number of other users including paper wallets. This caused another fork between the .17 and .18 chains. Michi has been attempting to explain why 'locked transactions' is not a good idea. The user mooncoin_foundation has been refusing to acknowledge this and it is delaying forward progress. Michi has suggested a Miner Activated Soft Fork or User Activated Soft Fork which burns the coins on the chain. If the user mooncoin_foundation would agree to a MASF or UASF we could resolve this chain split by moving the mining pools to the .17 wallet and abandoning the .18 chain. And we could then secure the .18.5 wallet and include the MLikes, Moonword, and a MASF or UASF to do the burn and exclude the 'locking'. Are you user moncoin_foundation simply refusing to move forward without 'locking' and refusing to agree to a burn? I'm honestly just trying to understand why we are currently in a delay at this point. Is there no way that you will accept or agree to a .18.5 wallet that does a MASF or UASF  burn instead of a 'lock'?



Here are some corrections and clarifications it seems there are some users that think just because this thread has a history repeating a lie makes it true.

Firstly, I thought our team was inclusive of all of us, Taranis67, agswinner, and the user mooncoin_foundation (By assuming Taranis67 communication was received through agswinner as neither Taranis67 nor user mooncoin_foundation would speak directly to the other. As the user mooncoin_foundation has a history of sending inflammatory private and or public messages to others (including me) and Taranis67 had his limit of them). The user mooncoin_foundation even promised a code review before releasing .18 (which never happened, the code was released publicly and I was given a link to that public code). That is until the user mooncoin_foundation released a wallet and convinced all the mining pools to use the .18 wallet without any review or agreement from anyone.



You know this is not true. At best it's a stretch. As I recall you had a wallet from James which I think is also barry and in this wallet was something no-one heard of, ballon hash. Something happen between you two and barry (AKA James) left the project. You didn't know what to do and hired Vas (who didn't make that wallet but to this day is blamed) to compile and release this wallet. I did some research into this ballon hash and found where he got this source code. In the creators release notes were numerous warnings about being an alpha release and the creator of that hash advised people to not use this code as it is likely insecure. So I guess I was at lease in part the reason we are still using scrypt and not ballon hash. But I never claimed to have vetted all the code in that wallet. I didn't build that wallet. I didn't release that wallet. I did help Vas debug some issues he was working on by providing debug logs. I assumed that Vas was vetting the code, but I'm now willing to bet that the user mooncoin_foundation paid him and instructed him to simply compile the code and release it.


This is a stretch as well. I had in the past PM'ed the user mooncoin_foundation to let him know some of the delays were due to attempts to get code signing certificates because all the code signers I could find and knew about required a company or corporate structure that could be verified to issue certificates. I was not familiar with that Russian site which issues some sort of user-level code signing certificate, but I am now.
We were investigating PoS but had no intention of just wildly building and releasing it. It was at the investigation stage that is what I said.


I thought we were moving forward not playing the blame game. I'm not blaming you for the 3 years in which you the user mooncoin_foundation were paying to have wallets released with these vulnerabilities (these issues are not specific to .13). The user mooncoin_foundation had six years to fix these issues and when our team was ready to fix these issues. The user mooncoin_foundation took action to delay our release so that he could release a wallet with the appearance of security while not actually having any. This is concerning but we are still attempting to move forward with you.


I think you are missing the point here. "locked transaction" is not a proper solution. Michi has suggested a Miner Activated Soft Fork or User Activated Soft Fork which burns the coins on the chain. This is how coin burns work they are sent to a wallet that cannot be spent as no one has the keys to it.


Um, as the coins have never been locked because the wallet is not secure the .17 wallet didn't unlock a single thing. Are you concerned Vas is going to spend or move the coins for some reason? Because I got the impression from Agswinner that no one wanted the burn to happen until some legal issue is complete sometime this summer, I mean everything has been unlocked for two years and you all have had physical access to the wallet and nothing moved.



This is an outright lie. Nuff said.


As I recall when this locking was done initially there were a bunch of people complaining about losing coins but maybe that was some general complaint about an exchange or something.

No, I never thought about you as a competitor. We think different, we live in different worlds.
All this stuff is not for me.  I do not want to be CEO of Mooncoin, and it is not possible technically in a decentralised project. 
First, we should see a normal research about locked transactions.

You have never given respect to our team. Not one offer of support in all our time together.   In fact, I'd go as far as to say you saw us as a competitor.

0.13.9 has nothing whatsoever to do with our team. The dev that you announced First is responsible for 0.13.9.

You are acting as a CEO, taking unilateral decisions and having them implemented on your say so. Development doesn't just mean working on code, a blockchain's development covers aspects such as marketing, Web development, community engagement, finding future projects, etc.

Vulnerability WAS found, I've stated that already, amd was shown and explained above re CE. Hence the long period where coding was done and redone to iron out issues right back to the beginning of the blockchain.

So now you need to explain to the community what steps you are going to take to ensure all blocked coins are returned to their owners.

No, untrue.
Edit: Vassilis, a dev of 0.13.9 never was 'my' dev. Vassilis was not found by me, was not bound with a contract, any formal agreement, was not donated by me, he was a dev of the community, wanted to work with the project over long term.
Mebagger2. You confirmed that you are part of his team, or he is part of your team,
he contacted me in 2017 (his previous account was 'mebagger', without'2') and told that barrysty1e's new wallet is based on exotic and likely insecure BalloonHash instead of Scrypt, and that is not good.
The community supported mebagger's view and started to build a new 0.13.9 wallet, Scrypt-based.
Mebagger was helping Vassilis, together with other tech persons.


I was quite inactive then. Anyway I am not a tech person and never had an access to Mooncoin Github.
If I were a dev, then I would definitely check everything what I release in my Github. It is a big responsibility.


However, I am not a tech person, and only can trust or not trust devs, based on their reputation, their activity, based on what the community and experts think about them. I trust ChekaZ and Peter, they reported vulnerability and fixed it.If ChekaZ would be a bad guy, he could just mine billions of MOON fast and dump them, that was the vulnerability. ChekaZ explained that we're lucky there were no attacks in Mooncoin history exploiting this vulnerability. My understanding is that otherwise block explorers would show abnormal increase of current supply.

I did not know about vulnerability before ChekaZ informed me about it in Jan, 2020, when working on SL, and he immediately suggested a solution from Peter Bushnell to fix it.
That had to be fixed fast, like Bitcoin inflation bug. If any attacker would discover the vulnerability, the Mooncoin chain would be ended very fast, with absolute losses for all holders.
Mebagger2 was contacted, it turned out that he knew about the vulnerability for months.
Peter Bushnell, a blockchain expert, Feathercoin founder and ChekaZ were happy to assist mebagger2.
Was it not collaboration?


Peter and ChekaZ insisted on their safe solution, without a chain split.

Let's be clear, our team has no responsibility for 0.13.9. We did not build it, your developer did. It was released on 11th December 2017, months before I set about trying to gather a team together.

In the intervening time we had many issues to deal with, namely austerity in crypto in general, CoinExchange problem, amongst others.

Black and white is the only way to see things. An action needs explained fully. You need to explain fully your actions. You have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut, deliberately or not.

Again untrue. If there is a proof that in 0.18 wallet there are blocked addresses of innocent members, which were not locked in 0.13.9, then, yes, ChekaZ and Peter made a mistake and I am also responsible.
However, if coins of innocent members were locked in 0.13.9, this wallet was during 2 years in your hands, it is at MooncoinCore Github. This wallet was built with  help of mebagger2, by Vassilis.
Actually, the question why innocent members funds were locked in MooncoinCore 0.13.9 wallet, if it will be proven that0.18 only took these blocked transactions from 0.13.9.
Thus, if it is proven, then 0.13.9 MooncoinCore team are responsible for that, and anyway they are responsible for the fact that during almost 2 years there was a big vulnerability in the wallet which could lead to the end of chain just in several hours.
You accuse, but don't see evident things. You call white black and black white. What for?
Can you just tell what it is all about? What are your suggestions?

The consensus was to block 62B coins moved to your developer's wallet.

There is not and never has been consensus to block coins of innocent members of this community on a whim of one person.

You don't even know who's coins you have blocked nor will those members if this community that have now had their coins taken away from them.

0.17 is a wallet build. A secure build that was necessary to proceed further. 0.17 was never intended to burn 62B coins. We had plans for that, already eluded to above and discussed in depth with Agswinner.


But let's not conflate what you have done with your wallet and possible POS, burn or anything else.

No, untrue. There was and is consensus to block these coins.
Research history of this forum.
There was no consensus to unlock them, like it was done in 0.17.
What if coins would be dumped before you would find a solution to burn them (I doubt it is possible technically without a private key, several experts were asked a question about it). Who would be responsible? Devs of 0.17, or you personally?

Edit: okay, if you don't trust this forum, ask at your Telegram channel, whether people want to see these coins locked or unlocked. If they vote to unlock them, they can be unlocked in a new update, but then don't accuse us if they are dumped, also we can remove SmartLikes from the release (Michi said something against it), but then don't ask me where Smart Likes are. What was promised was done, now I am calm and you can go without Smart Likes, if consensus does not accept them.

Obviously consensus isn't everything to you as you are responsible for blocking 1,500 transactions with no consensus from anyone. 

Your view on POS is your view, everyone has a right to their view.

I don't need to remember, I have it all on record.

Can you confirm that on March 19th last year I took you through all of our plans, (in a conversation that lasted 3 hours), that I advised you that we would like to set up an "overseeing committee" to "help shape direction and changes", that you and one other member from BCT were invited onto it and that you didn't accept the offer?

For the record, some of these plans were, New mobile wallet, STEM project, "possible dual POW/POS, the need for a bigger development team, SL, MW, staking on mobile wallet, burn, security, my frustration at not being able to speak to Vass to get a resolution, funding, promotion, no ICO but building future projects onto Mooncoin to benefit the community and price...including burning small amounts each transaction of any project.

can you remember what “All of our plan “is?  and what has been done?

Yes, the consensus is everything. But how exactly would you vote for Proof-of-Stake, for example?  At Telegram?
How to count votes? What if there are fake accounts? How to verify it?

Edit: no, I am not completely right. The consensus is everything, but some things related to Mooncoin nature should not even be discussed. Now there is a problem with low hashrate, for example, but if Mooncoin will not follow BTC classic model and will become just one of thousands of POS coins,it will have no future at all.

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?

No, I said that the research should be done regarding 1,500  transactions.
I am satisfied with fix of vulnerability and with Smart Likes.

I have answered your questions. Just now I'm trying to get to the bottom of who instructed, and why, the blocking of 1,500 transactions. This has massive implications for all of the community members who have had transactions associated with those 1,500.

ALL members must now go through the list to find out if they are affected and if their coins have been blocked.

You have paid for those 1,500 transactions to be blocked so now you are answerable for it, especially given you've stated you are satisfied that it has been done.