isnt there a way... wordage here...
of a backcheck or .. a stopcheck? (argh) someone on one of the various coins i look at...
talked about doing it, or having it done, so that the 51% wouldnt work on the coin, even while it was pow.
(course, later it was multi algo, so maybe it still didnt work)
Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 77. (Read 317742 times)
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.
I didn't mention anything about fraud no as there's no evidence of that, only that those coins were supposed to be locked up with no access as that is evidenced here in this thread. The only fraud I can see evidenced is Barry lied about locking those coins.
I have no idea why he was so fixated on the fraud part, if I believe someone is doing shady things then I will usually make that clearly known. Like with MF trying to get me to sweep Barry's debt under the rug and just let him keep my coins, or him offering me a fraction of my BTC back to leave it alone after so I wouldn't hurt his investment.
However, I would find it highly suspicious if the new dev is the one in control of those locked coins now.
Maybe barrysty1e was confident, that his solution would work and he made Mooncoin_Foundation and everyone else believe the same? But as the dev he should have known, that this is no 100% secure solution.
Either both overlooked, that Mooncoin is a Proof of Work-coin and thus has the weakness of a possible 51%-attack, which is what happened here? Or they ignored it and the "locking" of the coins was just marketing to drive the price?
A possible 51%-attack (and the relatively low hashrate needed to perform it, compared to the rates of LTC, DOGE etc. and in regard to the available massive amounts of hashing-power worldwide) was the reason, why I advised several times to implement other methods of securing the coin (PoS, hybrid, Proof of Human Work, mixed algos etc.). But nothing of this happened. It was more important to get a new logo several times, SmartLikes, MoonWord, lower block-rewards (to scare the miners even more away ...) and "locking" coins ...
ah ok, thanks for clarification.
CryptoDatabase is right, in that there was an attack, that "unlocked" the coins (most probably by a 51%-attack with code without the limits), so that the
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.
giantkin also is right, in that he believes that the coins are from Cryptsy, as stated by "the community". But he is wrong in only concentrating on the "fraud"-accusation. What comes after the OR in the sentence of the original posting is important here, because that attack was successful and the locked-by-wallet-code coins were transferrred to Vassilis' address.
Hopefully it is clear now.
And that is, why I again recommend handing the coins over to the authorities: to "burn" possible fraud-accusations as soon as possible in the best way available, instead of "burning coins", which would leave these kind of accusations unresolved forever.
Just good we can have a conversation about it.
Im in favor of burning. But i dont get how its done.
burning to me, is destroy, however burning is actually putting it on an adress that noone has the privkey to? (or access)
which is what i did to 1million coins, when going to paper... so i burned those coins?
My posting was about burning the accusations, not the coins. It was meant in a metaphorical way. Burning coins technically needs sending them to an address outside of the valid Mooncoin-address-spectrum and it has to be 100% sure, that the coins aren't spendable ever again.
But as said, this is a bad idea, since this won't clear the cloud of possible fraud-accusations, which can better be counteracted by simply doing, what is done with possibly stolen goods normally: hand them over to the authorities, to let them decide what to do with it. This is the only way to end that chapter of the coins. Everything else will not destroy ("burn") speculations/suspicions and will leave a dark cloud over Mooncoin.
CryptoDatabase is right, in that there was an attack, that "unlocked" the coins (most probably by a 51%-attack with code without the limits), so that the
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.
giantkin also is right, in that he believes that the coins are from Cryptsy, as stated by "the community". But he is wrong in only concentrating on the "fraud"-accusation. What comes after the OR in the sentence of the original posting is important here, because that attack was successful and the locked-by-wallet-code coins were transferrred to Vassilis' address.
Hopefully it is clear now.
And that is, why I again recommend handing the coins over to the authorities: to "burn" possible fraud-accusations as soon as possible in the best way available, instead of "burning coins", which would leave these kind of accusations unresolved forever.
Just good we can have a conversation about it.
Im in favor of burning. But i dont get how its done.
burning to me, is destroy, however burning is actually putting it on an adress that noone has the privkey to? (or access)
which is what i did to 1million coins, when going to paper... so i burned those coins?
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.
I didn't mention anything about fraud no as there's no evidence of that, only that those coins were supposed to be locked up with no access as that is evidenced here in this thread. The only fraud I can see evidenced is Barry lied about locking those coins.
I have no idea why he was so fixated on the fraud part, if I believe someone is doing shady things then I will usually make that clearly known. Like with MF trying to get me to sweep Barry's debt under the rug and just let him keep my coins, or him offering me a fraction of my BTC back to leave it alone after so I wouldn't hurt his investment.
However, I would find it highly suspicious if the new dev is the one in control of those locked coins now.
So the coins were not in the Recievership control?
thats what i was led to believe. (from posts in this thread)
(after the cryptsy thing i should clarify)
i thought the Receivership released them...
was they 'taken' from cryptsy? (which is...good and bad)
thats what i was led to believe. (from posts in this thread)
(after the cryptsy thing i should clarify)
i thought the Receivership released them...
was they 'taken' from cryptsy? (which is...good and bad)
no i wasnt. i still think he was wrong.
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
No you didn't, this is what you said.
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.
if you have no idea...then dont post about it. just makes you look clueless.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you have to lie about what you've said.
I take giantkin seriously... Why? Because unlike YOU, he isn't talking out of his ass!
There are a couple other people in here, just like you, that LOVE to take things out of context or read something into a post that just isn't there.
Let's Look at the original post...
Quote
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.]quote]
If you take the whole thing IN context, the guy is an idiot for making a comment about something he knows NOTHING about, even though the second half of his comment may be true.
The FACT that he says that if there is stolen money, that it could be developer fraud, shows that he has NO clue in regards to the circumstances of the stolen coins and therefore he has no right to comment.
And this is where YOU(and others like you) come in. All you read was "a bad defense against hacker attacks" and decided giantkin was wrong for telling the the guy not to post because it makes him look clueless.
And giantkin also made an excellent point.... The guy could defend himself (if he wanted to), he doesn't need you to do it for him.
Last point... Just because you don't like what someone posts, does not give you the right to call someone a liar, especially when the facts don't support your claim.
If you take the whole thing IN context, the guy is an idiot for making a comment about something he knows NOTHING about, even though the second half of his comment may be true.
The FACT that he says that if there is stolen money, that it could be developer fraud, shows that he has NO clue in regards to the circumstances of the stolen coins and therefore he has no right to comment.
And this is where YOU(and others like you) come in. All you read was "a bad defense against hacker attacks" and decided giantkin was wrong for telling the the guy not to post because it makes him look clueless.
And giantkin also made an excellent point.... The guy could defend himself (if he wanted to), he doesn't need you to do it for him.
Last point... Just because you don't like what someone posts, does not give you the right to call someone a liar, especially when the facts don't support your claim.
CryptoDatabase is right, in that there was an attack, that "unlocked" the coins (most probably by a 51%-attack with code without the limits), so that the
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.
giantkin also is right, in that he believes that the coins are from Cryptsy, as stated by "the community". But he is wrong in only concentrating on the "fraud"-accusation. What comes after the OR in the sentence of the original posting is important here, because that attack was successful and the locked-by-wallet-code coins were transferrred to Vassilis' address.
Hopefully it is clear now.
And that is, why I again recommend handing the coins over to the authorities: to "burn" possible fraud-accusations as soon as possible in the best way available, instead of "burning coins", which would leave these kind of accusations unresolved forever.
Hi glantkin,
obviously you both are talking at cross-purposes.
The problem is, that barrysty1e implemented a measure in the code, that did not work --> coins were unlocked and sent to another address. That is another thing than the fact, that the coins that were moved, stem from Cryptsy originally.
Btw., regarding "fact": is there any proof, that the address from where the coins were sent, really is a Cryptsy-one? So that it could stand up in court?
Good point. I dont know how to prove that the coins were cryptsy coins. (i think it was mentioned..on here..which isnt proof) that the ...recievership ppl released the mooncoins
(i would assume, because the value of those coins is so low, it wasnt worth their time?) harsh, but plausible. they only want to stea..i mean recover valued assets.
no i wasnt. i still think he was wrong.
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
No you didn't, this is what you said.
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.
if you have no idea...then dont post about it. just makes you look clueless.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you have to lie about what you've said.
I take giantkin seriously... Why? Because unlike YOU, he isn't talking out of his ass!
There are a couple other people in here, just like you, that LOVE to take things out of context or read something into a post that just isn't there.
Let's Look at the original post...
Quote
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.]quote]
If you take the whole thing IN context, the guy is an idiot for making a comment about something he knows NOTHING about, even though the second half of his comment may be true.
The FACT that he says that if there is stolen money, that it could be developer fraud, shows that he has NO clue in regards to the circumstances of the stolen coins and therefore he has no right to comment.
And this is where YOU(and others like you) come in. All you read was "a bad defense against hacker attacks" and decided giantkin was wrong for telling the the guy not to post because it makes him look clueless.
And giantkin also made an excellent point.... The guy could defend himself (if he wanted to), he doesn't need you to do it for him.
Last point... Just because you don't like what someone posts, does not give you the right to call someone a liar, especially when the facts don't support your claim.
If you take the whole thing IN context, the guy is an idiot for making a comment about something he knows NOTHING about, even though the second half of his comment may be true.
The FACT that he says that if there is stolen money, that it could be developer fraud, shows that he has NO clue in regards to the circumstances of the stolen coins and therefore he has no right to comment.
And this is where YOU(and others like you) come in. All you read was "a bad defense against hacker attacks" and decided giantkin was wrong for telling the the guy not to post because it makes him look clueless.
And giantkin also made an excellent point.... The guy could defend himself (if he wanted to), he doesn't need you to do it for him.
Last point... Just because you don't like what someone posts, does not give you the right to call someone a liar, especially when the facts don't support your claim.
Does anyone has any clues on how much they raised? 
no i wasnt. i still think he was wrong.
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
and that wasnt rude. I told him not to make accusations.
(and he could defend himself really)
No you didn't, this is what you said.
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.
if you have no idea...then dont post about it. just makes you look clueless.
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you have to lie about what you've said.
geez dude... thats what i said... and thats what i meant. accusations.
You need to stop turning my words. why are you doing that?
seems like you are trying to keep this project buried. why?
whats your motive? barry is gone. the newer dev is scared off. the value is super low...
how much more can you say about it?
let it lie and recover.
ive been holding my coins since the cryptsy thing.
(which was NOT the coins fault)
Hi glantkin,
obviously you both are talking at cross-purposes.
The problem is, that barrysty1e implemented a measure in the code, that did not work --> coins were unlocked and sent to another address. That is another thing than the fact, that the coins that were moved, stem from Cryptsy originally.
Btw., regarding "fact": is there any proof, that the address from where the coins were sent, really is a Cryptsy-one? So that it could stand up in court?
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.
That's why I voted for making Mooncoin more secure over and over again. But Mooncoin Foundation and some others blocked that - for example my suggestion of making MOON a PoS/PoW-hybrid coin or implementing another - more complex algo or technology - making it a little harder to attack Mooncoin, instead of spending development-power on MoonWord, SmartLikes and other relatively uninteresting things. If these really were interesting for the cryptoworld, the price would be much, much higher already - because as an investor you know an important rule: buy the rumor, sell the fact. Now we have the mess by setting wrong priorities.
I repeat it once again: If the basics of a coin don't work, then the rest is pointless.
@agswinner: I have been absent for a longer time for good reason. Part of it was to see, whether what I thought and warned you of, will come true. And it came true. Mooncoin was attacked and again some of the Mooncoin-people now are trying to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e "burning" coins).
As for the government trying to overtake: I did not mean a government like that of the U.S., but the government of the some here always trying to sell some peoples opinions as the truth and the "decision of the community".
Maybe you have not read the excerpt in full or did not understand it completely: the most important conclusion from that excerpt is, to not censor coins, because it undermines trust in a currency. As sad as it is, that these coins eventually will come to the market again and that previous owners don't want to buy their own coins again, when they are correctly handed to the authorities, as good it is to show the cryptoworld, that Mooncoin has corrected the mistake it made.
There were others here before, who described this as a big problem. But they were ignored.
And now everyone complains about Mooncoin "not taking off" and cries for "burning the coins" to make it go to the moon. Again a wrong path, which will make it even worse.
Btw: there are many others, that may not even post here, but are also part of "the community".
edit:
Here the link to the mentioned excerpt again: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
...and the text from there:
"Prevent any transactions spending "stolen" coins, effectively destroying those coins. If the coins clearly are stolen, then there is a risk that this action will be accepted by the Bitcoin community, but this would set a very damaging precedent. If it becomes possible for coins to be blacklisted in this way, then it is a slippery slope toward blacklisting of other "suspicious" coins."
i think its one of the last 2.
I haven t done it myself. have to leave it for someone who has.
oh, is your wallet encrypted. (i think it needs to NOT be, but im not sure)
i think someone can help you, with these details, just gotta wait for that.
I haven t done it myself. have to leave it for someone who has.
oh, is your wallet encrypted. (i think it needs to NOT be, but im not sure)
i think someone can help you, with these details, just gotta wait for that.
Yeah...I have readed this....and I this is a problem with bip38 or 58 encriptation...
I don`t know what more I can do to transfer this coins.
That's the issue; hardly any QT based wallets use BIP38 encryption for importing private keys anymore. Only WIF.
"Note that not many bitcoin wallet applications or web services are able to import BIP38 private keys. In this case, you will have to use the "Validate" feature on the generator to extract the unencrypted Wallet Import Format (WIF) key as an intermediate step before sweeping the balance."
https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com/bitcoinpaperwallet/generate-wallet.html
Click 'Skip', then click the 'Validate or Decrypt' tab. Copy and paste your private key into the blank field box, then click 'Validate/Decrypt'.
well, crud. sry, gotta wait for someone thats done it.
and I need to eventually. (im not in a hurry to do so)
I forget, what vershion of wallet you are using? (whats latest do you know?)
and I need to eventually. (im not in a hurry to do so)
I forget, what vershion of wallet you are using? (whats latest do you know?)
Yes, fresh install without encript
the new wallet you are started.
sorry, i thought i was clear there.
is the wallet your trying to put your coins INTO, encrypted?
sorry, i thought i was clear there.
is the wallet your trying to put your coins INTO, encrypted?
You forgot...paper wallet...I don`t have a wallet.dat file
This is the problem... With a wallet.dat file its easy solve
This is the problem... With a wallet.dat file its easy solve
if zero... start a new wallet.dat file, without encryption and try to import again.
if it imports then (make backup then)
and then encrypt. (and make a backup of that)
Then decide your risk factor
(the first backup, would need to be destoyed...as its unencrypted. )
just make sure everything works before you delete anything.
if it imports then (make backup then)
and then encrypt. (and make a backup of that)
Then decide your risk factor
(the first backup, would need to be destoyed...as its unencrypted. )
just make sure everything works before you delete anything.
ok... that part maybe...i can tell you about..and maybe you figure it out.
you have to have an unencrypted wallet, to import the key (pretty sure)
is your current wallet has any coins on it?
if zero... its easy
if it has some balance... then it gets dangerous (for me to explain )
so you dont have a mistake.
if theres a balance.. make a back up of your wallet.dat file. NOW.
put it somewhere else. usb key etc. rename it to Moonbackupwallet.dat or something (i use date in mine)
you have to have an unencrypted wallet, to import the key (pretty sure)
is your current wallet has any coins on it?
if zero... its easy
if it has some balance... then it gets dangerous (for me to explain )
so you dont have a mistake.
if theres a balance.. make a back up of your wallet.dat file. NOW.
put it somewhere else. usb key etc. rename it to Moonbackupwallet.dat or something (i use date in mine)
Jump to: