Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 5. (Read 317736 times)

Devs are also not fools, and no dev, especially with reputation, will do things, with open source project to risk their reputation. Instruct you them, or not. By the way, Vassilis was also instructed to burn coins when community voted for that, he did not do that due to his own reasons. In a decentralised project it is just not possible technically to be a boss.

Edit: if you read this ANN thread (pages which are related to the beginning of 2018), you will see how many community members instructed Vassilis to burn coins, some members even phoned him, he said. 'Due to his own reasons'  - it was meant that he received threats, besides he said he was advised by his lawyer to burn no coins due to possible legal issues.

It is too early to discuss these 1,500 transactions. It is necessary to do the research, to compare wallets, transactions etc.    
ChekaZ worked to implement Smart Likes, when he discovered vulnerability, it had to be fixed. I am satisfied with his work, which fixed vulnerability and implemented Smart Likes.

So, you ask again and again, but how about parity? Will you answer my questions or not?

He stated addresses. I think in this case "addresses" and "transactions" have been used interchangeably so we could conceivably use both as meaning the same thing but that is for Peter to confirm, not us.

1,500 transactions (let's round it up for expediency) were blocked. You say you didn't instruct that and he has stated he was instructed. He was paid for doing the work so we can only assume whoever paid him was satisfied with his work. Chekaz then claimed that work was his. Did Chekaz instruct 1,500 transactions to be blocked or did Chekaz pick those transactions to be blocked by himself?  

Whoever paid Chekaz was also satisfied with his work so we can only assume that that person knew all of the work that had been done.
I gather you paid Chekaz. Were you satisfied with 1,500 transactions being blocked, even though you don't know who owns the coins that were part of those transactions?

No, I think Peter meant transactions, not addresses. Transactions, related to 3 addresses. If you look at Github source which ChekaZ posted in his post above, part of code, there are 1,495 transactions.

Edit: if there were 1,500 addresses, then there would be maybe about one million transactions to block.
So now we will discuss why one million addresses was blocked? 

You are right. But you do not know that the community already approved 62 B coin burn/lock 2 years ago.
Moreover, if there is vulnerability which could lead to the end of chain, it should be fixed immediately and not voted. Pools and exchanges are not fools, they think twice before every update.

My wallet 0.18.1 working well
It is good to remember that "barrystyle protection" is on big cryptsy addresses; the 62b are only a part of them. To understand it is necessary to know the address of Michi and where your "blocked coins" come from.

You instructed 3 addresses to be blocked but 1,500 transactions were blocked instead.

You have just stated you didn't instruct 1,500 addresses to be blocked. Peter Bushnell has stated he was given 1,500 addresses to be blocked. That leaves Chekaz. Remember, Chekaz claimed he did the work and that it was verified by Peter Bushnell.

Did Chekaz work against your instructions?

What are you saying about? Transactions are not addresses, 3 addresses could have about 1,500  transactions.
I did not work with Peter, I sent 3 addresses to ChekaZ.

Let's deal with one issue at a time, shall we?

Peter Bushnell has today stated that he was "explicitly given addresses to block." Did you give him those 1,500 addresses to block?

During several years no one reported that his or her address was blocked due to protection. It is very strange.
Someone can just research 0.10.5, 0.13.9 and 0.18.1 and compare locked transactions, and to answer if they belong to these 3 addresses or not, and which do not belong, if there are any.
Edit: it had to be taken into account though that in 0.10.5 and in 0.13.9 the protection covered addresses from which coins were moved to the 1st address with 62B when protection was hacked. I don't know if ChekaZ removed or not this outdated part of code.
Just it will take time to do this research. I do not have list of transactions, my understanding is that ChekaZ took it from 0.13.9.

My question to Taranis, did you plan to burn 62B coins and in which way technically?

So, a TX can contain more than one destination...

So, if anyone else's coins were caught up in those transactions; just with the bad luck of being in them - in other words, if other outputs (UTXOs) were contained in those TXIDs,  too bad, so sad, you're collateral damage?

This doesn't sound like a good way to do things.

So 3 wallets weren't blocked, 1,500 transactions were blocked.

1,500 transactions were blocked.

You, Moonncoin Foundation, stated you instructed only 3 wallets to be blocked. Do you know instructed the rest of the TX's in other wallets? Because there ARE other wallets affected. Noone knows who's wallets they belong to, they could belong to any member of Mooncoin's community.

The only way to know is for every member to check their own wallet.

Furthermore, you must be a bit confused about how consensus and the blockchain is intended to work.  Consensus is not arrived at by a guy asking for a show of hands on a forum.  The 62B burn would/should have been agreed upon by the community or miners (MASF or UASF) accepting a fork which burns the coins, when presented to them.

You acting as "Boss of Mooncoin" and telling a hired gun to add transactions to a list without question, is not the way to go about this. 

Nevermind that the "62b" burn is now creeping in scope to "62b … and some others that M_F thinks should be burnt!" If there was a 'vote', I certainly did't' get to participate.

The fact of the matter is, even if you do feel that Mooncoin should be governed by you, a single guy, asking for a show of hands and then delivering a diktat - your guys cast your net too broad by banning hundreds of input txids, versus "three addresses" of your choosing. 

Whether this was done intentionally or mistakenly doesn't really matter, since "Because Mooncoin_Foundation told me to do it" is not how blockchain consensus is supposed to function under any circumstance. 

M_F : You can say till you're blue in the face that "0.18 only blocked 3 addresses" but this is NOT THE CASE.   As ChekaZ JUST reiterated, *addresses* were not blocked.  INPUTS were blocked, and hundreds of them were. 

I'll say it again to be clear: You claim "3 addresses were blocked", but that is simply not true, and it's there in code:  transaction INPUTS were blocked. Including inputs that consist of coins in my personal wallet.

In a commit, as you know, of course, the commit comments do not matter. Only the code does, and the only place where the three addresses you mention appear, are in the commit comments.  What follows is a list of hundreds of 80-bit TXID prefixes.  Not addresses. Transactions. Inputs.

I am not going to list my addresses here out in public just on your command. However I can assure you that no, it is NOT one of the three you mentioned; however that does not matter because the ban list does not consist of addresses, but txids.

Perhaps your contractors cast too wide of a net, but the result is the same.  Your repetition that only three addresses were blocked has no bearing on reality, since absolutely anyone is free to look at the code and see that that is not the case.

Yes, I did try to send coins and yes, 0.18 blocked them, as I detailed, with screenshots and log excerpts, plain as day, several posts ago.

These are facts, not opinions.   0.18's banlist blocks my coin inputs, and that was discovered by me trying to send coins in the process of performing a test when we were attempting to bring the 0.17 and 0.18 wallets back into interoperation.

I don't know how I can be any more clear, and I don't know how you can refute what is in code and on the blockchain.  You're free to look at the txids, recent transactions, and inputs -- it's all out there in the open, as I posted it yesterday.  This isn't something that can be "debated".  This is what the blockchain does; it records these things, and the fact of the matter is inputs in my wallet have been blocked in 0.18, causing my coins in my wallet to become immovable.

Do you personally agree that these coins should be protected against move (not authorised by the community), or not?
If you wanted to  burn them, how exactly were you going to do that technically? It is impossible without a private key.

I will ask also Michi, again, what is your address? Did you try to send coins from it?
Did you use 0.17 or 0.18 to send coins? Please update to 0.18 and resync the chain if there are issues with your wallet. No one hates you and no one blocked your coins.

Hi!

The new protection was based on the old 0.13.9 protection which can be seen here:

Here's the list in 0.13.

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160

New list in 0.18.

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573

The list of blocked TXs based on the addresses given.

Any TX that has a destination to one of the three addresses given cannot be spent.

None of the outputs in the TX can be spent. 0.18.1 went with the design of their original protection in 0.13.9 which stopped TXs as a whole from being used as inputs.

23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 @Michi
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1308

Also the addresses & code got sent to Mebagger, he reviewed it before the code was published & didnt have any comments on the blocked tx'es/addresses.

Kind regard,
ChekaZ

2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

Yes, I completely confirm that I instructed ChekaZ to protect these 3 addresses and only these 3 addresses against unauthorised move of coins from these addresses (in the 0.18.1 wallet).

Edit:
For people who don't know the story. The community agreed to lock these coins in 2016-2017, the protection was present in 0.10.5 and in 0.13.9. Coin lock is not 100% solution, but it is better than nothing. Coin lock does not 'compete' with coin burn. If coin lock is in place, it does not mean that devs cannot remove it in their new release and replace it with coin burn, though it is not recommended.

Just to be 100% clear, was it you that instructed 3 wallet addresses to be blocked?

It is important not only how many, but also which one. I answered how many and which one.