Michi, this address was blocked in 0.10.5 in 2016 when a dev was barrysty1e. So, it was nothing new in 0.18. I will look for history of posts at Bitcointalk and prove it.
Also, I never sent coins to you. Maybe it was agswinner who did it in 2018.
Edit: and in 0.13.9 by Vas in 2017 again this address is locked. Only coins from these 3 addresses, posted by ChekaZ, were locked whenever in Mooncoin history, so again nothing new.
Michi, can you please post your address and why have you decided that it does not work? Have you tried to send coins from it?
You can easily look at Github history of 0.10.5 and 0.13.9 wallets to have a proof that these addresses were locked in 2016 and again in 2017, when you were not close to Mooncoin development.
By the way, the problem with validation (security issue) was also present in 0.10.5, not only in 0.13.9.
Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 7. (Read 317736 times)
It's interesting then that my wallet's inputs are in that list. I also am not sure why you guys would add a ban list sight-unseen without any rationale from the people giving it to you whatsoever?
I thought our concern was the stolen Cryptsy-based 62 billion coins; not a couple collections of "mystery transactions" without any explanation as to their source.
I'd like to note that the only reason we discovered this ban/freeze was that we were in the process of working on ways to make 0.17 and 0.18 interoperate, to bring everyone back to one chain and solve this current dilemma and move forward. It was odd when test transactions from me started being mysteriously rejected by 0.18. We looked at a lot of things, but honestly my wallet being on the ban list was one of the last things we figured would be the case.
I should add that I feel this is one of the dangers of unaffiliated developers doing the behest of "a guy", (even if that guy calls himself a foundation.) - and the problem with a "bounty list" development model. There was no community stake here. Just a person telling a hired developer to add a txid to a banlist. No questions were asked, it seemed; and now that wallet is widely adopted, my mooncoins are immovable. Any txid could have been on that list, and it wouldn't have been vetted.
This isn't how consensus is supposed to work.
I certainly had nothing to do with Cryptsy or any thefts. My wallet has very few transactions in it at all; the vast majority being Moon that I mined back in the Deaconboogie days. (I've been involved in Mooncoin going back to January 2014.) I *lost* Mooncoin to Cryptsy, I didn't gain it. (And those transactions bear it out, too.)
But for example; here we have a blocked transaction in 0.18.
n=23f1ade1a9
80 bits. 80 bits from the 0.18 ban list added in the Feb 7 commit: https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/commit/c9c275d85aef837f612e86db1e69e175de528f8d#diff-25d902c24283ab8cfbac54dfa101ad31.
(Note I haven't scoured all of my transactions so this isn't exhaustive. This is one example.)
https://imgur.com/a/eBYGt1D
This transaction leads to my wallet:
https://imgur.com/adxHgnR
As I've said I haven't been paid for doing any work on Mooncoin, except for the 500k MOON that Moocoin_Foundation sent to me on 3/18/2018 (Along with a list of expectations, by the way) for building the Mac wallet back then. The only other transactions between then and now in my wallet have been 1 MOON test transactions for development purposes; going to and from my own test wallets.
Meaning: The only person who has had exposure to my personal Mooncoin wallet is Mooncoin_Foundation.
The only other possible explanation for my wallet's input txids ending up in the banlist is literally, a *minimum* of 80-bits of coincidence.
While that's possible, realistically, it isn't.
I thought our concern was the stolen Cryptsy-based 62 billion coins; not a couple collections of "mystery transactions" without any explanation as to their source.
I'd like to note that the only reason we discovered this ban/freeze was that we were in the process of working on ways to make 0.17 and 0.18 interoperate, to bring everyone back to one chain and solve this current dilemma and move forward. It was odd when test transactions from me started being mysteriously rejected by 0.18. We looked at a lot of things, but honestly my wallet being on the ban list was one of the last things we figured would be the case.
I should add that I feel this is one of the dangers of unaffiliated developers doing the behest of "a guy", (even if that guy calls himself a foundation.) - and the problem with a "bounty list" development model. There was no community stake here. Just a person telling a hired developer to add a txid to a banlist. No questions were asked, it seemed; and now that wallet is widely adopted, my mooncoins are immovable. Any txid could have been on that list, and it wouldn't have been vetted.
This isn't how consensus is supposed to work.
I certainly had nothing to do with Cryptsy or any thefts. My wallet has very few transactions in it at all; the vast majority being Moon that I mined back in the Deaconboogie days. (I've been involved in Mooncoin going back to January 2014.) I *lost* Mooncoin to Cryptsy, I didn't gain it. (And those transactions bear it out, too.)
But for example; here we have a blocked transaction in 0.18.
Code:
020-03-04T18:20:49Z tx: CTransaction(hash=fdc42f37a1, ver=2, vin.size=2, vout.size=2, nLockTime=1808773)
CTxIn(COutPoint(23f1ade1a9, 763), scriptSig=473044022027ec0f8dbd2eb9, nSequence=4294967294)
CTxIn(COutPoint(ebc527bc00, 1), scriptSig=473044022063249c2b3207d3, nSequence=4294967294)
CScriptWitness()
CScriptWitness()
CTxOut(nValue=1.00000000, scriptPubKey=76a914331239adb02567181be42742)
CTxOut(nValue=0.01097187, scriptPubKey=a914eb3614bc94909a809ea2a7a884)
has triggered forbiddentx alert (n=23f1ade1a9, txdebug=101)
n=23f1ade1a9
80 bits. 80 bits from the 0.18 ban list added in the Feb 7 commit: https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/commit/c9c275d85aef837f612e86db1e69e175de528f8d#diff-25d902c24283ab8cfbac54dfa101ad31.
(Note I haven't scoured all of my transactions so this isn't exhaustive. This is one example.)
https://imgur.com/a/eBYGt1D
This transaction leads to my wallet:
https://imgur.com/adxHgnR
As I've said I haven't been paid for doing any work on Mooncoin, except for the 500k MOON that Moocoin_Foundation sent to me on 3/18/2018 (Along with a list of expectations, by the way) for building the Mac wallet back then. The only other transactions between then and now in my wallet have been 1 MOON test transactions for development purposes; going to and from my own test wallets.
Meaning: The only person who has had exposure to my personal Mooncoin wallet is Mooncoin_Foundation.
The only other possible explanation for my wallet's input txids ending up in the banlist is literally, a *minimum* of 80-bits of coincidence.
While that's possible, realistically, it isn't.
Hi Michi!
As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:
We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)
These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.
Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.
As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:
We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)
These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.
Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.
So I've been avoiding posting here because of the politics and not wanting to get into the fray. But it looks like our heroes have dragged me in one way or another.
I'm Michi, and I've been a core Dogecoin developer for years; and I, on a volunteer basis, became one of the lead "volunteer side" mooncoin devs about two years ago when I built the mac wallet, which the community was in need of.
I currently fill the role of lead developer of the Mooncoin Core team, which obviously now differs from what I'll call the "Mooncoin CEO Team" which includes Mooncoin_Foundation (an individual, not a foundation), AGSWinner, and their hired contractor, ChekaZ, who subcontracted Peter Bushnell (Bushstar) of Feathercoin fame.
-----
Recently I've been working with Mebagger on work leading up to 0.17; I've received no pay for my work in the last two years - unlike ChekaZ, who is a contract hired gun; but it looks like no good deed goes unpunished.
My question is this:
Mooncoin_Foundation, ChekaZ:
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?
The only contact you, MF, have had with my wallet, is when you paid me the princely sum of 500,000 mooncoin (Back then around USD $12, now about USD $6) as a "thank you" for completing the Mac wallet. Little did I know that that payment would come with my wallet being on a banlist later on. I would have refused that if so, bringing the total amount of pay I've gotten for working on the Mooncoin project down from $12 USD to $0.00.
This seems like a vindictive action. I want to know why.
Can you, ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell explain why my personal wallet was added to 0.18's block/forbidden list, along to the 62 billion coins - with no explanation?
Bushnell, you made the commit that added the ban. Who gave you the list of txids to ban? That wasn't explained in the commit on Feb. 7; the txid was simply...included, when it wasn't before.
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/commit/c9c275d85aef837f612e86db1e69e175de528f8d#diff-25d902c24283ab8cfbac54dfa101ad31
I understand that due to the magic of concensus, the Mooncoin "community" has "decided" on 0.18 because of MF and ChekaZ' marketing tactics, the inclusion of a few "features" (Smart Likes and Moon Word) which don't actually *do anything* yet; seemingly bread and circuses.
But I'd really like to know the rationale for the 0.18 "team" adding other devs' personal wallets to the block list, surrepetitiously?
I half expect something vague and nebulous from M_F's sycophants along the lines of "Well if they froze your wallet, they must have a reason!" - Sorry, nah, this will not do. I want to know the rationale that lead to the decision. Otherwise you guys are lacking transparency.
Bushstar - if the ban list didn't come from M_F or ChekaZ, who *did* it come from?
ChekaZ, Mooncoin_Foundation - what's your rationale for adding my wallet to the list?
... Furthermore, If you're running 0.18 and ChekaZ/MF's builds, and MF and crew decide they don't like you ... will they freeze your wallet, too?
I'm Michi, and I've been a core Dogecoin developer for years; and I, on a volunteer basis, became one of the lead "volunteer side" mooncoin devs about two years ago when I built the mac wallet, which the community was in need of.
I currently fill the role of lead developer of the Mooncoin Core team, which obviously now differs from what I'll call the "Mooncoin CEO Team" which includes Mooncoin_Foundation (an individual, not a foundation), AGSWinner, and their hired contractor, ChekaZ, who subcontracted Peter Bushnell (Bushstar) of Feathercoin fame.
-----
Recently I've been working with Mebagger on work leading up to 0.17; I've received no pay for my work in the last two years - unlike ChekaZ, who is a contract hired gun; but it looks like no good deed goes unpunished.
My question is this:
Mooncoin_Foundation, ChekaZ:
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?
The only contact you, MF, have had with my wallet, is when you paid me the princely sum of 500,000 mooncoin (Back then around USD $12, now about USD $6) as a "thank you" for completing the Mac wallet. Little did I know that that payment would come with my wallet being on a banlist later on. I would have refused that if so, bringing the total amount of pay I've gotten for working on the Mooncoin project down from $12 USD to $0.00.
This seems like a vindictive action. I want to know why.
Can you, ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell explain why my personal wallet was added to 0.18's block/forbidden list, along to the 62 billion coins - with no explanation?
Bushnell, you made the commit that added the ban. Who gave you the list of txids to ban? That wasn't explained in the commit on Feb. 7; the txid was simply...included, when it wasn't before.
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/commit/c9c275d85aef837f612e86db1e69e175de528f8d#diff-25d902c24283ab8cfbac54dfa101ad31
I understand that due to the magic of concensus, the Mooncoin "community" has "decided" on 0.18 because of MF and ChekaZ' marketing tactics, the inclusion of a few "features" (Smart Likes and Moon Word) which don't actually *do anything* yet; seemingly bread and circuses.
But I'd really like to know the rationale for the 0.18 "team" adding other devs' personal wallets to the block list, surrepetitiously?
I half expect something vague and nebulous from M_F's sycophants along the lines of "Well if they froze your wallet, they must have a reason!" - Sorry, nah, this will not do. I want to know the rationale that lead to the decision. Otherwise you guys are lacking transparency.
Bushstar - if the ban list didn't come from M_F or ChekaZ, who *did* it come from?
ChekaZ, Mooncoin_Foundation - what's your rationale for adding my wallet to the list?
... Furthermore, If you're running 0.18 and ChekaZ/MF's builds, and MF and crew decide they don't like you ... will they freeze your wallet, too?
I think these question was about the .18 build to the people that built and maintain the .18 version nothing to do with .17 or .13. The people that built the .17 and .13 versions can answer questions about those versions.
why was this consensus value changed to 3 months from a default of 24 hours and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;)
why was this consensus value changed to 20 blocks from a default of 3 blocks and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
why was this consensus value changed to 3 months from a default of 24 hours and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;)
why was this consensus value changed to 20 blocks from a default of 3 blocks and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
Thought my work was complete on Moon but I keep being pulled back in!
Code:
int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;
This was set in the 0.13 client, seemed very old to me but I set it verbatim as I did not consider it my place to judge at that point. Should have revisited this after discovering that 0.13 also hacked out large portions of block validation. This plays a part in IsInitialBlockDownload, once block sync is 90 days old from the current time it will no longer be considered the "initial block download". This can be changed to 24 hours or whatever people consider suitable for Moon.
Code:
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
If this was left at 3 then 0.18 would have considered nodes as stale after 4.5 minutes. Bitcoin's setting of 3 is 3 * 10 minutes, so it takes 30 minutes of no blocks being sent for a node to be considered "stale". 20 is then the same for Moon, 20 * 1.5 = 30, so tips are considered "stale" after 30 minutes same as Bitcoin.
It seems there is something wrong with the forbidtx list.
This makes sense:
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R --> https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon/address.dws?846906.htm
1278 transactions
This does not make sense:
Old wallets with large balances? Why are they included? both from 2014 one of these wallets is from a dev that created the .17 wallet. Is this some personal attack?
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK --> https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon/address.dws?2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK.htm
24 transactions
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A --> https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon/address.dws?2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A.htm
71 transactions
Even then the total count of transactions is wrong. the count of transactions from the validation.cpp is 1386 ... but the count of transactions from the three wallet addresses from chainz.cryptoid.info is
1,373.
I think these question was about the .18 build to the people that built and maintain the .18 version nothing to do with .17 or .13. The people that built the .17 and .13 versions can answer questions about those versions.
why was this consensus value changed to 3 months from a default of 24 hours and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;)
why was this consensus value changed to 20 blocks from a default of 3 blocks and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
why was this consensus value changed to 3 months from a default of 24 hours and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;)
why was this consensus value changed to 20 blocks from a default of 3 blocks and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
Thought my work was complete on Moon but I keep being pulled back in!
Code:
int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;
This was set in the 0.13 client, seemed very old to me but I set it verbatim as I did not consider it my place to judge at that point. Should have revisited this after discovering that 0.13 also hacked out large portions of block validation. This plays a part in IsInitialBlockDownload, once block sync is 90 days old from the current time it will no longer be considered the "initial block download". This can be changed to 24 hours or whatever people consider suitable for Moon.
Code:
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
If this was left at 3 then 0.18 would have considered nodes as stale after 4.5 minutes. Bitcoin's setting of 3 is 3 * 10 minutes, so it takes 30 minutes of no blocks being sent for a node to be considered "stale". 20 is then the same for Moon, 20 * 1.5 = 30, so tips are considered "stale" after 30 minutes same as Bitcoin.
I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases.
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty()
- "who released this?"
So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty()
- "who released this?"So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
0.18.1 was a paid job by Mooncoin_Foundation to fix the Blockchain of its previous "doesn't validate blocks issue" & develop "LIKES" as a feature - It got designed to be compatible with 0.13.9 and fix these issues on a set Blockheight 1801000 which ensures that nobody is left behind or on a fork upon the release. 0.18.1 does validate the new Blocks but lacks of historical validation as this would have lead to a fork. - 0.17 did this and forked away alone as it wasnt compatible with the previous version 0.13.9.
Historical validation should be added to 0.18.1 but wasnt directly necessary or doable without breaking the consensus instantly. Validation has been restored on the 0.18.1 Client and a fully validating 0.18.1 version can be released.
As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).
I think these question was about the .18 build to the people that built and maintain the .18 version nothing to do with .17 or .13. The people that built the .17 and .13 versions can answer questions about those versions.
why was this consensus value changed to 3 months from a default of 24 hours and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;)
why was this consensus value changed to 20 blocks from a default of 3 blocks and was not dependant on the "fork" block height?
(net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() )
Everything is simple.
You want to deliver your own wallets, ideas, everyone is welcome! Not me who invites, it's nature of this project. Or again there will be several years of inactivity after these stormy days, which are full of attention to Mooncoin? No, stagnation is the worst thing for crypto, for Proof-of-Work coins especially.
'Fear is the path to dark side, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering'. Not me who said it.
Edit: don't use 0.18.1.L. Here is why:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54050237
You want to deliver your own wallets, ideas, everyone is welcome! Not me who invites, it's nature of this project. Or again there will be several years of inactivity after these stormy days, which are full of attention to Mooncoin? No, stagnation is the worst thing for crypto, for Proof-of-Work coins especially.
'Fear is the path to dark side, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering'. Not me who said it.
Edit: don't use 0.18.1.L. Here is why:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54050237
As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).
https://m.imgur.com/a/GOjRv43It was done on March , 1, what for? If to put 0.13.9 on the same chain with 0.17, but due to this action 10K blocks of blockchain for those who use only 0.13.9 wallet now are lost.
Block explorers are on 0.18 and if you updated to 0.18, you are okay, but after the action above, it is not safe to stay on 0.13.9 any longer.
Why all these issues, artificially created?
0.18.1 was released before 0.17, it fixed security issues, added Smart Likes feature, which community was waiting and asking for so long time, solved other issues, requested by the community, moved to the most modern 0.18 codebase. It was announced in advance, was discussed before the release.
Why they released 0.17 after that, with no discussing, without Smart Likes, without protection? What for they made a split of chain and then 1,000 Ghs and 10K blocks lost for 0.13.9?
Do really anyone, investors or users, from anywhere want a wallet without Smart Likes, with outdated 0.17 LTC codebase, with unlocked 62+12 B, and now with lost blocks?
I'm not used to seeing evil everywhere, but after reading about fake conspiracy theories, I think the thread that unites the actions of different actors, although some of them may be unaware, is the control of the blockchain and the 62+12 B...
As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).
https://m.imgur.com/a/GOjRv43It was done on March , 1, what for? If to put 0.13.9 on the same chain with 0.17, but due to this action 10K blocks of blockchain for those who use only 0.13.9 wallet now are lost.
Block explorers are on 0.18 and if you updated to 0.18, you are okay, but after the action above, it is not safe to stay on 0.13.9 any longer.
Why all these issues, artificially created?
0.18.1 was released before 0.17, it fixed security issues, added Smart Likes feature, which community was waiting and asking for so long time, solved other issues, requested by the community, moved to the most modern 0.18 codebase. It was announced in advance, was discussed before the release.
Why they released 0.17 after that, with no discussing, without Smart Likes, without protection? What for they made a split of chain and then 1,000 Ghs and 10K blocks lost for 0.13.9?
Do really anyone, investors or users, from anywhere want a wallet without Smart Likes, with outdated 0.17 LTC codebase, with unlocked 62+12 B, and now with lost blocks?
I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases.
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() - "who released this?"
So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty()
- "who released this?"So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
0.18.1 was a paid job by Mooncoin_Foundation to fix the Blockchain of its previous "doesn't validate blocks issue" & develop "LIKES" as a feature - It got designed to be compatible with 0.13.9 and fix these issues on a set Blockheight 1801000 which ensures that nobody is left behind or on a fork upon the release. 0.18.1 does validate the new Blocks but lacks of historical validation as this would have lead to a fork. - 0.17 did this and forked away alone as it wasnt compatible with the previous version 0.13.9.
Historical validation should be added to 0.18.1 but wasnt directly necessary or doable without breaking the consensus instantly. Validation has been restored on the 0.18.1 Client and a fully validating 0.18.1 version can be released.
As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).
ChekaZ is a tech expert and he will answer better why 0.18 is secure and other wallets are not.
Let's just wait for his comment.
Also let's trust facts, and not words only.
If you are a tech person, a dev, or just an investor like us, ask yourself, why the vulnerability with the validation in the old wallet was not fixed during almost 2 years.
Taking into account that Mooncoincore current devs started their work in the first half of 2018.
All this time there was a great risk for all investors and for exchanges. Is it a fact, or you do not agree?
Edit: ChekaZ immediately fixed the vulnerability, that is why I trust him more. He also immediately reported the issue to us when he discovered it. You could be afraid of potential leak of info and be silent before the new release, but it could not explain why you did not fix it during 2 yesrs after receiving Github credentials.
Also my understanding is thatChekaZ did not even tell pools and services about vulnerability, to avoid leak of info about vulnerability before the fork block, and services updated because ChekaZ and Peter are quite known and trusted persons in crypto, also they worked transparently, with support of Bitcointalk community, with clear commit history of 0.18 at MooncoinCommunity Github, unlike what we can see about 0.17 at MooncoinCore Github.
Regarding coins, that were lost due to using of 0.17 Mooncoincore, though it was announced that the only version to use is 0.18, and in the future you can also lose coins if you use wallets not supported by pools, exchanges and block explorers and not announced in this ANN,
however, taking into account that the situation is quite unprecedented, and interests of investors should be protected, even if they were misinformed by someone out of Bitcointalk,
we can discuss that lost coins can be just donated to you, rather than making a new wallet update and risk. However, if for whatever real and fair reason we really need another update, we can discuss it here transparently with devs and blockchain experts.
Let's just wait for his comment.
Also let's trust facts, and not words only.
If you are a tech person, a dev, or just an investor like us, ask yourself, why the vulnerability with the validation in the old wallet was not fixed during almost 2 years.
Taking into account that Mooncoincore current devs started their work in the first half of 2018.
All this time there was a great risk for all investors and for exchanges. Is it a fact, or you do not agree?
Edit: ChekaZ immediately fixed the vulnerability, that is why I trust him more. He also immediately reported the issue to us when he discovered it. You could be afraid of potential leak of info and be silent before the new release, but it could not explain why you did not fix it during 2 yesrs after receiving Github credentials.
Also my understanding is thatChekaZ did not even tell pools and services about vulnerability, to avoid leak of info about vulnerability before the fork block, and services updated because ChekaZ and Peter are quite known and trusted persons in crypto, also they worked transparently, with support of Bitcointalk community, with clear commit history of 0.18 at MooncoinCommunity Github, unlike what we can see about 0.17 at MooncoinCore Github.
Regarding coins, that were lost due to using of 0.17 Mooncoincore, though it was announced that the only version to use is 0.18, and in the future you can also lose coins if you use wallets not supported by pools, exchanges and block explorers and not announced in this ANN,
however, taking into account that the situation is quite unprecedented, and interests of investors should be protected, even if they were misinformed by someone out of Bitcointalk,
we can discuss that lost coins can be just donated to you, rather than making a new wallet update and risk. However, if for whatever real and fair reason we really need another update, we can discuss it here transparently with devs and blockchain experts.
I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases.
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() - "who released this?"
So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty()
- "who released this?"So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?
Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment
Well, please I ask everybody to rectify me if what I am saying is nonsense.
I did this way: put everything on a paper wallet, then downloaded v.0.18 and consequently imported on the new wallet, so that I am now on this chain.
Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment
Well, please I ask everybody to rectify me if what I am saying is nonsense.
I did this way: put everything on a paper wallet, then downloaded v.0.18 and consequently imported on the new wallet, so that I am now on this chain.
There was a big security issue in 0.13.9 due to insufficient level of knowledge of previous devs (they were talented and experienced coders who sincerely wanted to help our community, unfortunately they were not blockchain experts).
ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.
Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.
Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.
Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.
Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.
Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.
In a truly decentralised project there is no 'official' team, especially without Bitcointalk and with no consensus.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.
Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.
Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.
Wise words! Many thanks MF. Let's go forward 💪🏻
In a truly decentralised project there is no 'official' team, especially without Bitcointalk and with no consensus.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.
Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.
Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.
There was a big security issue in 0.13.9 due to insufficient level of knowledge of previous devs (they were talented and experienced coders who sincerely wanted to help our community, unfortunately they were not blockchain experts).
ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.
Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.
Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.
ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.
Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.
Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.
The final result has value for me: We have 2 different chains and a community which is busy with any issue except the spread and development of Moon. So, we see the consequences of this (low trading volumes, very low prices, low total hashrate)...
You're right. I've left the Telegram group and joined here, it is just angry there hung up on past issues.
A lot of what is being said does not make sense, too easy to start cooking up conspiracy theories after reading it all, it's a bad habit to get into.
Let's not be the same, we need to find a good positive way forward for Mooncoin.
Jump to: