Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 75. (Read 317805 times)

thanks for sharing, always hard to follow the project

Hello have not heard from Mooncoin_Foundation for a while   i wondering if someone could give a update on the fork and coin and v please waiting paitenly like many others   any news would be good

Hi! I totally agree with you, polemarhos888! Only with this priority can success be achieved in the future. The project pleases us for a long time, and I hope this will continue! Best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

Hi team,
can anyone that is in touch with Vassilis explain this, it was pointed out in the telegram group by a dev:

https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/commit/b257fcd5c33369f5f718a120c6b873dbc752705e

why would V change the checkpoints?

This seems to be pretty serious, please answer asap.

Thanks

https://twitter.com/mooncoinbrasil/status/967448784010731520

or just add some MN to lock a certain amount of coins away

And the idea was abandoned.

My opinion is that the most important thing now is the development. So, we can look at adding the proof of stake in the near future (for a more safe network). Of course, after hard fork.

Yes Coinflow, about rollback we have already discussed at the hacker attack on December 2014....

Please tell the community, why you need defamation of other (longtime) community members? As far as I remember, this was not necessary for several years in both of the Mooncoin threads.

So having said this, I assume you have a good reason for telling, that the believed-to-be Cryptsy-coins belong to "the community"?
As far as I know, they still belong to Cryptsy (represented by the receiver), as part of their "insolvency estate" (edit: to be distributed among their claimants).

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.

I have checked the hashrate and daily mining blocks from cryptoid.info. I did not see any strange issue. 

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...
Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..)
Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

It censors coins again, just like it was done by trying to "lock" them.

I'm only formulating my opinion and try to explain, how there is a better way to go forward.

What did bitcoin do exactly to censor coins?
First of all, there is a difference between censoring coins and censoring opinions. Then, what is the "betterment" of the community? The coin itself can not be held guilty for being used for fraudulent actions. Hence the punishment should only be directed to the one using it for these - AFTER a formal trial in the jurisdiction of that individual. If today the assumed coins of Vernon are blocked, then tomorrow your coins may be blocked, because you have another opinion than the majority of "the community", or because of "an error in the code".

They don't have to buy them again. Others can buy them instead.
They only need to accept, that censoring coins is a dangerous precendence-case, that will make it possible again to block coins for any reason, especially if not ALL other coin-holders have been asked by an official election that is fool- and fraud-proof. Just imagine, these were your coins instead, you are the rightful owner, but cannot prove that those coins are wrongly blocked, by the decision of possibly shady devs or a "strange" community. The problem is the possible arbitrariness.

That is not the question.
The question is, what jurisdiction is relevant for Vassilis and what are the rules there, to not become a criminal when acting.
So, as said, for him living in a European country, it is highly likely that he must return obviously stolen goods to the relevant authority to not make himself part of the crime. Whether they can decide better what to do with the coins is not the question.

Why is this arrogant? Don't you think it is more like raping and being arrogant, if "the community" forces Vassilis to burn the coins, even if he becomes a criminal by doing this? Vassilis himself has not yet reported, what his lawyers recommend.
If the coins would not have been "locked" in the first place, this problem would not have arisen.

I have said that before in other words. It makes Mooncoin arbitrary. And this is what scares potential serious investors more away in the future, then what will be gained now by changing the code. If they can't rely on set standards, that is always bad.
What happens, if the price does not rise significantly, after the coins are burned? Should the amount then gradually be reduced to 1 MOON by taking more and more coins out of the system by first "locking" them and then "burning" them? That is the opposite of seriousness and reliability of a currency and won't build up trust at all.

I hinted to this, because in the past there have been some deadlines for some "decisions" set to two weeks or so (e.g. the logo). This is against all fairness for those members, because they would not even have a chance realize, that something like this is going on. For a serious discussion something this should be propagated everywhere possible and with a wide time frame, to make it possible for non-frequent readers/investors also possible to notice.

I even have linked the page, so everyone can read, in what context the excerpt is used originally. And it says exactly the same: A government should not censor (that means: block) coins. Be it the US-president (elected officially) or a coins dev (not even elected officially).

Please, everyone. I'm by no means against maximizing wealth for every (honest) owner of Mooncoin.
But there are certain basics, that really should be mandatory, to not make Mooncoin and the underlying code only a disposable quantity to be altered if "the price is not right up to taste".

I agree !

Good afternoon. Vassilis said me again that he is waiting his lawyer's answer. Also, these coins will not be used for any reason. Now, the most important for Mooncoin is the development ! So, we need to see what can we do in this section.

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. 
you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen?  would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?
But Keep in mind that the dev can restore  everything .....

Development needs a developer. So the first would be, that Vassilis clears the situation.

When this is done, Mooncoin should follow this roadmap:

1. Improving the security-model of Mooncoin
2. Teaching the community how markets work, so that they can invest with confidence and not need to come back every day, to ask for development and marketing and/or cry about low prices and many coins in circulation. New features will not help anyone, if investors cannot be confident, that there is a capable, reliable developer, concentrating on the main aspects of serious development first and foremost
3. Get the coin to bigger exchanges
4. Teach the community to share info about Mooncoin and to use the coin, so more and more people can discover MOON as a perfect means to store and distribute wealth, without the complexity of coins like Ethereum, IOTA or other coins assumed to be the "bleeding edge". This can and must be done by explaining, that the relatively high circulating amount of MOON is not a bug, but a feature. It will make for a stable price in the future. Remember: many new people don't like to invest into a coin, that costs thousands of Dollars for one unit. Mooncoin is the ideal investment for newbies, because MOON are still cheap. It only needs to be reasonably communicated and it must be backed by a serious, honest and responsive developer, who is there, if problems arise - supported by the active community of course

If we want to achieve all this and want to make Mooncoin a serious contender to coins like DOGE or even LTC in terms of reputation and market capitalization, then we have enough work to do.

Mooncoin should be a classic, serious, secure alternative to other, more experimental and thus high-risk coins.

Look at it like this:
The Moon means stability and reliability. So why not try to make Mooncoin kind of the "reserve" in the long run? Just as the Moon is the dependable companion for the Earth, which makes human existence possible; because without it, the Earth would not have enough stability to make any life possible.