Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 move to a new thread - page 8. (Read 317736 times)

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)...

In the past days I read a lot of bad accuses against this community in Telegram chat: conspiracy about 62B stolen coins, 51% attack, rights of women disrespected, investors = speculators, etc.

Therefore the post of GrGringo with the Principles, Rules and Ethics of MOONCOIN is fresh air 😅 during these difficult days!

Mooncoin Telegram still has their version stickied so they're actually pushing a fork of Mooncoin.

They are now a different chain from 0.13.

Maybe Mooncoin Telegram should rename their project and add replay protection to prevent transactions being broadcast on both chains?

Just to remind everyone. The rules and ethics of the Mooncoin Foundation

Mooncoin Ethics

The Code of Mooncoin
(set of Mooncoin principles, rules, ethics)

1. Mooncoin is a decentralised coin.
2. Mooncoin is an open source project.
3. Mooncoin follows the model of Bitcoin, Proof-of-Work, deflationary coin.
4. Mooncoin project does not belong to anyone.
5. Mooncoin community decides how to develop the project.
6. The indicative, gathering platform to discuss Mooncoin related things, to share ideas and to find the consensus is Mooncoin Bitcointalk ANN thread.
7. Any team  or any dev can develop Mooncoin, however, only in the best interests of community.
8. The community decides which Mooncoin Github source, websites, other resources to use, which dev or team to trust.
9. The community decides which information should represent Mooncoin at well known crypto resources like Coinmarketcap, at exchanges etc.
10. Mooncoin devs or team leaders have no right to represent the Mooncoin community, to decide how to develop Mooncoin – without permission from the community.
11. Mooncoin devs are responsible for their code, however,they don’t own it.
12. Mooncoin devs and teams have no right to ignore the community, interests of investors. They have to respect the community members, to be in touch with community, to listen to opinions of supporters, tech experts, main investors, to keep Mooncoin spirit of freedom, collaboration and mutual understanding, to follow crypto ethics and philosophy of decentralisation.

MoonCoin
In the name of peace and progress.

Source http://mooncoin.vip/mooncoin-ethics

Cointopay.com since 2014 iOS/Android and web wallet

+1 vote for Michi’s proposal for me as well 👍🏻

Also, +1 Vote from me about the Michi's proposal (wallet 0.18.5).

Newbie at the bitcoin talk forum? But She’s not an impostor, I got to know her in the telegram lion arena. You told me you were here from the first page of the old MOON forum. I assume that’s Markus' or Mr Palmer’s account instead. We know that Doge is our sister/brother, born as copy and paste of Titan’s Luckycoin, our previous dev/consultant. I want to remind  that are part of MF those who hold more than 1b here. In renewing my esteem and all my trust in MF, he will be able to clarify your comments on time. As an investor, not nice to see groups or teams fighting, censoring and mocking for a bad English. In any case we go ahead, we are human, we can also go wrong, I vote for the proposal of MICHI for a release of the v 0.18.5. (my vote = 1). About the v 0.17 experienced technicians told that it was full of bugs. Here we ask for two years security, Mword and SL, exchanges, mobile wallet. They said “soon”, but does “soon” mean two years in English? I can only say,  that the “reborn” group is a “death group” .

Your concept of moon has “no investors”, is a your personal opinion, you’re talking to a banker, financial analyst. If you do a little research you will see that banks offer btc and others as an investment. Doge also has venture capital investors. You have chosen to be a non-profit entity.

I do not think it is appropriate here to discuss whether moon is a securities, liabilities or asset, currency or commodities.

All the solutions to be adopted in a constructive way for the future of MOON are appreciated, also with the advice of other independent expert devs.

Is there a mobile wallet for Mooncoin?

I've not been able to fine one. Being limited to desktop wallets is a drawback and more and more people operate from mobile devices only. A mobile wallet would open the project up to more users.

To catch some up in the shortest way possible.. I am Sporklin, from Dogecoin Core Developers something easily verified, generally known in the space. My involvement in relation to Mooncoin predates many of the other names in this entire thread, as does my association in relation to the communities and developmental levels. Moon came from Doge, we were active in the original announcement even from a developmental standpoint; seen here. Was in the Mooncoin IRC channel as it was launched even. Ties over the years got slightly deeper as Michi, the lead developer for Mooncoin is also a member of Dogecoin Core Developers under The Dogecoin Project.

We have been reached out to along with many other teams in the space for advising and assistance by the Mooncoin users. For as weirdly it seems that people want to claim that Mooncoin is just one platform for community... There are several that exist. Having one championed above others in a decentralized project is rather odd from the outside in given communities have always existed on assorted platforms. None the less many got to see as people migrated into the Telegram group, checking Reddit, the Discord community even some trying to kick around in the old Mooncoin IRC. There has been extensive conversation over the past few days with most involved in this entire mess attempting to fathom on a level how this happened.

Very curious to know who contacted the mining pools using the phrase "mandatory emergency fork" on behalf of Mooncoin? In speaking with pool operators they were not pleased to find that things had been misrepresented to them, they thought they were doing the right thing in being timely, to correct an on chain flaw during a dire situation. The only flaw found here is that no one actually verified things, slightly disturbing boarding to negligent. Expanding upon this a little, who contacted the exchanges involved in this? Their people sat in the Mooncoin communities stating that they were in contact with project developers; only to be informed by community members and developers that was not the case. It caught them a bit off guard as they have tried to answer to the communities, the users and developers with answers they seem only to have on the basis of misrepresentation.

Mooncoin Foundation which is not an actual entity was wielded as if it was something that was directive, involved, or played some other part in things apart from being a name used here. A singular person, not a community, not a development team, not a fraction of the userbase. I understand it is a name here but in speaking with things in the space there was no awareness of this name in relation to Mooncoin in any functional manner until this event; where things were used to mislead platforms, mining pools in relation to the project itself. A bit shocking on their end to find out that Mooncoin Foundation is not something more than a name used here. They were led to believe that it was a functional entity that no amount of conversation, research, checking registration spanning multiple countries could find. Why was this wielded in this manner?

Other reputations are on the line in this that go beyond Mooncoin. Peter who wrote things, is the Feathercoin lead developer. ChekaZ is the founder of TrezerCoin and CoinKit (a tipbot that handles funds for assorted projects in the space based on good faith handling) is who retained Peter. Neither of these parties had awareness that there was ongoing development, that the communities were active in coming to some form of communal consensus about how to handle many of the ongoing issues in relation to Mooncoin with the team that has been there for years. Neither thought that they were being engaged to perform an attack on one of the oldest assets in the entire space still functional in a way that violated the principles of decentralization, of consensus that both of them have sought to uphold and maintain over the years. Dogecoin has had users who are aware of this situation reaching out, asking us to make very public commentary in relation due to the involvement of ChekaZ, there are concerns now tied to intentions. Mooncoin users are asking why Feathercoin developers hate them, why they did this to them. Why were they not informed honestly about what exactly they would be doing?

That there have been "investors" running around stating that more attacks will come against the chain in this manner until the functions that singular entities want, is vile. Mooncoin has no investors, much like 99% of the other assets that exist. The reality of it is that from a legal standpoint people who buy hoping for profits, are speculators. This offers no legal protections what so ever in manner to even pretend to be investors. No promissory engagement, no share issuance, assets bought are bought from other users, across third party platforms that are not engaged with the Mooncoin Project directly in form or association to imply protections, securities or entitlements on behalf. Owning Mooncoin does not mean you own a "share", it simply means you own a Mooncoin. The threats being made on behalf of "I hold more than you, I will pay to have my way" is not how decentralization works. The threats being made in front of users who have supported Mooncoin through everything, platforms that have stepped in to express curiosity in relation to Mooncoin.. This does not give the best impression by far, fear mongering through bullying and threats only makes things seem childish. That the chain will be broken on the whim of people LARPing as "investors" makes Mooncoin a liability to platforms engaged with it as they are the ones who have to answer to their users in this all. Which of you thought this was the best way to go about things?

If this is to be what Mooncoin is to be now, perhaps pay attention to the sentiment attached to the actions taken here. I do hope that someone has the answers to these questions, they are the few outstanding ones. Nearly everyone has been upfront in relation thus far but apparently there are answers here, with the one who funded the attack that terrorized the userbase for personal gain. Other projects are now watching this having heard about the situation, in a decentralized environment this should not happen. That an entire project can be hijacked, having a massive dedicated community of users violated for money. To be told that it is in their best interest to not say anything against it with baseless promises, threats against users, developers, even other projects.

The Mooncoin communities have been wonderful to spend time among these past few days, thank you to those that reached out for help even if the circumstances were awful. To the people who have spoken honestly to discuss what happened and why, know that I understand this was not the best for you. To developers from other projects, who caught side comments and stepped in to offer assistance. This entire mess was not just a blow to Mooncoin but the manner in which it was done is a waking nightmare to many who have dedicated their time towards decentralization.

Yessss obey your masters and ignore thousends of fellow Mooncoiners.

Please realize that there are many people who support Mooncoin in different channels. Bitcointalk, Telegram, Discord etc.
Have some respect for the work they do.

Greetings all.   Altilly is currently running on v18 as the v17 consensus had some issues.    At this time it seems v18 is the most stable chain.

I am keeping it in maintenance for now until things settle down in order to keep anything from coming into or out of our wallets, which contain a significant amount of Moon.

- Mike

Mooncoinfoundation has the main say & is the only person to declare which wallet to use.
Although not the original dev, after saving the coin & community he will always be the head honcho to me. Still here while many others have come & gone.
If Mooncoinfoundation & agswinner haven’t authorised it then it isn’t official & no one else is worth listening to.

Special thanks go to Chekaz & bushstar.
Your expertise are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Things are looking even brighter for Mooncoin.

(Not sure why people pay attention to silly telegram groups.)

On a side note, God damn I miss trading moon at bleutrade. Anyone else?
Best trading I’ve ever done by far!
Gone are the days of summer madness.

Small digression  

Folgory ask me if we are interested to include Mooncoin in their pos system.
https://twitter.com/folgory1/status/1220068816559968256?s=21
They are negotiating to install the terminals crypto POS in Italy at Burgerking...
Since 2014 I have always told you ‘the use creates Value’.

You are right MF! Social media such as Telegram or other app allow a more direct approach and communication is easy, although from all that has happened in this circumstance it is quite clear that we cannot do without this forum, which holds the historical memory of Mooncoin, and is without doubts a much more transparent register.

A big thank goes to Chekaz that put a lot of effort for our Mooncoin community and involved a great person like Peter to solve this situation, although been banned for Telegram group! We will need the help of a highly skilled professional like you CheKaz. Thanks a lot!

Thank you so much Peter

I think that there's been a lot of misunderstanding all around.

If 0.13 follows the 0.18 chain after the validation restoration then I've offered to issue a patch for 0.17 to get it on the same chain as 0.13 and 0.18. Then everyone can be on the same chain again. What is not wanted to a split in the network and the community, it will only ultimately be damaging for all involved.

I believe that the developers will find a final solution in this case.