I noticed there's no makefile.unix in the src any longer to compile mooncoind, is there a way to run a QT version from the commandline in Ubuntu ?
Have you tried makefile without the *.unix-extension? In https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin/tree/master/src there is a Makefile Just gave that a try, doesn't work unfortunately. Found the answer, just compiled using QT4 and used configure --without-gui, that gave me the Mooncoind I needed  It's syncing now so I can add MOON to my pool soon. Did not work? See here: https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin/issues/2./autogen.sh ./configure --disable-wallet (if the wallet is not needed, for example on a P2Pool-node) make -f Makefile USE_UPNP=- USE_IPV6=- USE_QRCODE=- Worked for me on several Debian-/Ubuntu-instances. James (Barrysty1e) should add an instruction to the new GitHub-repository on how to compile correctly, like it can be seen in the old reps: https://github.com/mooncoin-project/mooncoin-landann (gjhiggins) https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin (deaconboogie - the original dev) (scroll down to "How to build Mooncoin") James? Please add that to the new repository's first page. Thanks. What to keep in mind is, that he changed the original folder structure */mooncoin/* to */Mooncoin/* (capital M). So folder .mooncoin is now .Mooncoin on a Linux-system, for example. That complicates it a little bit, because you need to mv something, but is no big deal, if you know it. See this also on how the P2Pool-thingy cleared up finally, in order to get the full picture: https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin/issues/3 |
|
|
|
I noticed there's no makefile.unix in the src any longer to compile mooncoind, is there a way to run a QT version from the commandline in Ubuntu ?
Have you tried makefile without the *.unix-extension? In https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin/tree/master/src there is a Makefile |
|
|
|
MOON/BTC-market 24 hr-volume on bleutrade is more than $23000  http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#marketsOnly to remind you all: Check the page above first, which market provides the cheapest coins. At the moment MOON/DOGE and MOON/LTC are cheaper, so most probably it is more lucrative to convert BTC to DOGE or LTC first, then buy MOON. At least for as as long as there are no buy-offers on the MOON/BTC-markets. ... which could be history soon ...? Let's hope the best.  Absolutely, have you all the noticed the BTC/MOON wall coming down? It was just at 44 BTC yesterday!! + $9,948 at Novaexchange BTC/MOON ...  Nice volume on their LTC-market, too: https://novaexchange.com/market/LTC_MOON/ |
|
|
|
MOON/BTC-market 24 hr-volume on bleutrade is more than $23000 http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#marketsOnly to remind you all: Check the page above first, which market provides the cheapest coins. At the moment MOON/DOGE and MOON/LTC are cheaper, so most probably it is more lucrative to convert BTC to DOGE or LTC first, then buy MOON. At least for as as long as there are no buy-offers on the MOON/BTC-markets. ... which could be history soon ...? Let's hope the best. |
|
|
|
As for my use of 'addresses', those coins went through multiple addresses before arriving at its final destination. History is the blockchain that contains the history of addresses.
Could also be a try to "mix" them? Could be a possibility yes, along with this could also just be a cold storage wallet for an exchange. Could also be. And to get away from speculation is why I mentioned, that it would be a good thing, to contact the exchanges for further investigation. |
|
|
|
As for my use of 'addresses', those coins went through multiple addresses before arriving at its final destination. History is the blockchain that contains the history of addresses.
Could also be a try to "mix" them? |
|
|
|
Is a blockchain forensic expert here, who could help us investigate further and advise us?
... that went to those addresses came from an exchange according to its history. Addresses? It is only one address. Which history? I don't think it was one person, who spent a ton of money on a pump. It was only a coincident, that MOON appeared in the top 30 on coinmarketcap after they repaired the false displaying of several coins in their list, because Mooncoin is traded on several smaller markets on Novaexchange, too. ASAFE/MOON for example showed a very high value which may have caused the average price of MOON be so high, that it appeared in the top 50. Then many people jumped on, because of FOMO - as usual. --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_outAnd Mooncoin rised to top 30 with prices on Bleutrade's DOGE/MOON market going higher than that of BTC/MOON markets. And with very high volumes on the BTC/MOON markets, too. Who would pump the coin by buying on that expensive market? At least this showed very clearly what can happen when Mooncoin climbs up to these heights. And what volume can be generated then. For everyone who wants to buy Mooncoin, see http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#markets first, in order to find the cheapest coin price. If you see MOON/DOGE being cheaper (at time of writing $0.000006 in DOGE as opposed to $0.000017 in BTC) don't buy MOON in BTC, buy it via DOGE (of course depending on the amount, since it may be that it becomes a higher price in DOGE if you go up, as we have seen). At the moment it would be good practice to scoop up MOON in smaller amounts on the DOGE or LTC-market ( https://novaexchange.com/market/LTC_MOON/ ) until they reach the BTC-price. Just check http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#markets and compare before you buy in order to make sure you get the coins for the cheapest price. I'm just going by what I see. MOON sky rockets up before falling back down. When it fell back down a new address appeared with 10 billion MOON in it that came from an exchange. That's a big coincidence. It's no bigger coincidence than someone sending their coins to a wallet-address that could be on an exchange, in order to seize the opportunity and/or prepare for higher prices to dump the coins into the market afterwards. Furthermore: when it fell back down the coins should be distributed more instead of less, because then the bigger amounts would have been sold to more individuals/different addresses. At least a pump and dump would have not make any real sense in this case, because many coins were bought via BTC/MOON-market and dumping them into the lower BTC/DOGE and BTC/LTC market would have been a loss. |
|
|
|
Is a blockchain forensic expert here, who could help us investigate further and advise us?
... that went to those addresses came from an exchange according to its history. Addresses? It is only one address. Which history? I don't think it was one person, who spent a ton of money on a pump. It was only a coincident, that MOON appeared in the top 30 on coinmarketcap after they repaired the false displaying of several coins in their list, because Mooncoin is traded on several smaller markets on Novaexchange, too. ASAFE/MOON for example showed a very high value which may have caused the average price of MOON be so high, that it appeared in the top 50. Then many people jumped on, because of FOMO - as usual. --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_outAnd Mooncoin rised to top 30 with prices on Bleutrade's DOGE/MOON market going higher than that of BTC/MOON markets. And with very high volumes on the BTC/MOON markets, too. Who would pump the coin by buying on that expensive BTC/MOON-market? At least this showed very clearly what can happen when Mooncoin climbs up to these heights. And which volume can be generated then. For everyone who wants to buy Mooncoin, see http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#markets first, in order to find the cheapest coin price. If you see MOON/DOGE being cheaper (at time of writing $0.000006 in DOGE as opposed to $0.000017 in BTC) don't buy MOON in BTC, buy it via DOGE (of course depending on the amount, since it may be that it becomes a higher price in DOGE if you go up, as we have seen). At the moment it would be good practice to scoop up MOON in smaller amounts on the DOGE or LTC-market ( https://novaexchange.com/market/LTC_MOON/ ) until they reach the BTC-price. Just check http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mooncoin/#markets and compare before you buy in order to make sure you get the coins for the cheapest price. |
|
|
|
Sometimes decentralization and fairness may conflict, but finally, at the end, over long term - they come together. Who needs decentralization if it's not fair? And fairness powered by decentralization is a great thing. It was a decision of people who owned a lot of billions combined and preferred to lose their Cryptsy coins forever than let dump them on the whole community. Anyway you can receive a compensation in fiat for your coins left at Cryptsy, if you fill the claim at http://cryptsyreceivership.com, and BTW the deadline is tomorrow (again and again we remind that to people who read us and might not know or not remember that)! @ all here: Please check this address: 2WfkSAnTzDZ1VjouGqh2nNtPZGMr1fJckZ See https://bchain.info/MOON/rich/ or https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon/#!rich or http://cryptoguru.tk/RichList/index.php?Currency=MOONThere have been many large transfers to that address (edit: since Sunday), it is now #3 on the rich list (at the moment 10 bln MOON). I have checked a Cryptsy deposit-address and could follow an amount going to the above mentioned address over some other addresses. Could it be another address of Big Vern - or one of his former employees/"mates" (since this is another possibility, that gets mentioned too seldom)? We cannot be sure, that the top two addresses of the rich list, which obviously are blocked now in the wallet, are the only ones, Vernon owns. Maybe those two biggest ones are only the cold wallet-addresses and there have been other wallets in action, containing several different addresses with smaller amounts of their customers (deposit-addresses) which are now consolidated, after the price has become "interesting"? Maybe 2WfkSAnTzDZ1VjouGqh2nNtPZGMr1fJckZ is already an address at Bleutrade or NovaExchange? Barrysty1e (James), you have been in contact with both of them, right? Would you mind finding this out together with the exchanges? Maybe it is a good idea for everyone here, counterchecking the route of their coins. If we can get other former Cryptsy-users to confirm this address being the endpoint of their Mooncoin now, we could involve the now active exchanges, to request verification from the person who owns that address, or to have them block this address altogether? Checking the route is easily manageable by using a block explorer and going straight through the transactions from the former (your deposit-address at Cryptsy) to the next address, to which the coins have been sent and so on - up to the last one. Is a blockchain forensic expert here, who could help us investigate further and advise us? |
|
|
|
...
You are right, that Mooncoin is still under the radar, but as you see, developing gimmicks like MoonLite or MoonWord are no solution for that problem either (btw.: have you considered it might be problematic, if someone writes something illegal into the chain, that is not erasable afterwards? That could even lead to becoming illegal to host the blockchain completely).
I am just curious: Tell me one example of an illegal text on the blockchain... Greetz Steve Even if you don't find one now, the danger is there. Just think about copyright. It would be unprofessional not to consider this. Not a good idea to post an illegal text even in here it's not the point with MoonWord: you can read any MoonWord record on the blockchain only if you submit a Mooncoin address to read its records, it's like if someone writes something illegal in his room, don't enter it and you will not read what is written there How is MoonWord constructed to let people only record contents to addresses, they own/control themselves (i.e. their own addresses), so that possible dubious contents will not be connected with another one's address? Have you thought about the problem that Microsoft could sue Mooncoin for using their trademark? Again, it is a matter of professionalism, to ask these questions. Especially because - see your other post - you say "Mooncoin was built with future in mind" - which - btw - is not contrary at all to first of all seeing Mooncoin as a stable store of value and a desirable collectible. Who could be against these two basics? |
|
|
|
It's more than clear that MOON needs more investors, etc.
how to make it real - that's the problem.
We can easily say: we need more investors! But will it make investors join MOON?
Block rewards is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem... maybe yes, generally,
but not in case of Mooncoin at the moment:
we all understand that Mooncoin is traded at sub-satoshi markets,
and big investors never buy at sub-satoshi markets, Mooncoin is below their radars currently (and for the last several years).
Buying MOON for DOGE and LTC at small exchanges also scares common people, who are new to crypto.
Many people have heard of MOON, some read us, but new people don't feel comfortable with buying it, it's not very simple: first buy LTC or DOGE, and only then - MOON.
Block reward reduce is needed to let MOON enter BTC markets and big exchanges (e.g. Bittrex promised to list MOON after entering BTC markets). People saw when Mooncoin network was stuck for a while recently and there were no new coins from miners, Mooncoin price was rising, when the chain started to move again and became stable, the price was instantly dumped and now remains low, also more than enough experience from previous years, not this case only.
You are expecting too much from reduced rewards. They will not be the remedy. Let's face it: as soon as the price enters "interesting" regions again, the whales will dump the price down. No matter how low the reward. So the amount of the reward is only a secondary area of conflict and plays no bigger role. You are right, that Mooncoin is still under the radar, but as you see, developing gimmicks like MoonLite or MoonWord are no solution for that problem either (btw.: have you considered it might be problematic, if someone writes something illegal into the chain, that is not erasable afterwards? That could even lead to becoming illegal to host the blockchain completely). Remember that the idea of Mooncoin once was to make it desirable as a collectible and interesting as a stable store of value. |
|
|
|
I already proposed that many months (years?) ago, but any change of the algo in that way was declined categorically by Mooncoin_Foundation.
i'd say probably for good reason to a point; not the easiest thing to do and guarantee compatibility, definitely not something you'd want a fly by night dev in charge of. so far argon2 has been mildly difficult to implement, but more patching, compiling, waiting and revising to be done. The only good reason for this was, that there was no dev available capable of doing that, at that time; maybe you could? But that was no reason to handle it that way. Anyway, those times seem to be over now. As said, MOON had the problems with the temporarily halted blockchain for quite a long time. So that is no new phenomenon. In fact, it was the beginning of the long way down first time, when the blockchain halted for several weeks, after the first rush was over and KGW was not yet implemented. So anything that will stabilize/even out the block-finding time under any circumstances is welcome. It was mentioned, that the reward scheme should be changed again. I don't think it will be a big factor for this. Moreover: Reducing the reward drastically, will prevent the ones to keep the chain going from mining MOON. It is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. What MOON is in need of: investors, that will put money into this currency. Especially then it is negligible to a great deal, whether MOON pays out 29531, ~17000, 5000 or even less as a block reward, since there are so many units already in circulation. When the price rises, these additional units will not make a difference, as soon as an old MOON-whale rises their head and puts a stash into the market to get out. The only thing that will help, is continually buying coins at these low prices and/or wait. To display patience is a big part of MOON. i had advised you that the reason for p2pool not working; is its requirement for getwork (p2pool requires getwork for low latency and this is why it works so well), as getblocktemplate isnt instant - in fact getblocktemplate (and its blocking of submitblock thread) has been responsible for many a lost bitcoin block over time. there are some classic back/forth jabs on github (or even here i think) between kano and luke-jr on this topic. getwork isn't impossible (nor that difficult) to reimplement back into the codebase, however i'm not sure if an argon2-based coin has ever been trialled on p2pool - might be an idea to ask around first. That was/is not the problem, as it seems. P2Pool still works with the new wallet/Mooncoind. The issue was resolved by the kind help of Rav3nPL: https://github.com/Rav3nPL/p2pool-rav/issues/103Thanks to him. The Mooncoin P2Pool-scanner: http://5.45.105.66 - it discovers and lists P2Pool-nodes automagically. Happy mining! |
|
|
|
nailed it, good point.
i've been toying with the idea of introducing groestl pow hashing into mooncoin; as even a few years after groestl caught on, the divide between CPU and GPU is only a factor of two. even an older CPU can generate a reasonable hashrate and participate in a pool. i don't want to jump in and make the call on my own; if things decided to move in this direction i would want it to be a community-based decision.
I already proposed that many months (years?) ago, but any change of the algo in that way was declined categorically by Mooncoin_Foundation. Glad to see progress on that, as it is not the first time those problems with the blockchain occured. Too bad p2pool does not work anymore with the new wallet/daemon, as p2pool most of the time was the pool that found the next block after the blockchain halted, hence the miner(s) dedicating their hashpower there were investing more into MOON than those big miners/pools, that only went on to mine MOON when the hashrate was low, driving difficulty up, only to leave afterwards again and mine another - more profitable - coin, until MOON was cheaper to mine again ... Don't forget: The first and foremost importancy are a stable wallet and blockchain. Without this all other gimmicks like MoonLite etc. are meaningless. See here for progress on the Mooncoin-p2pool-problem: https://github.com/Rav3nPL/p2pool-rav/issues/103 |
|
|
|
+ the wallet is in maintenance again.
Hi NovaExchange!  Please let me know when this has been completed. Maybe they are reluctant to use only two nodes via connect - especially as an exchange. Perhaps they see it as a security issue, because it adds a single point of failure, is the opposite of decentralization and foils the p2p-idea, when syncing only with two nodes deliberately and permanently. That could only be used as means of emergency for a very limited time, until the network is stable again. What about the stalled blockchain? How can miners be incentivized? Proof of stake could also help, still solving blocks when big miners jump off, but this method seems to be bashed in the first posting of this thread already, even though there are some successful coins using it. Maybe time to think about new methods, like Ethereum does with Proof of Acceptance? Maybe make Moon mineable via CPU again (directly from the wallet, so EVERYONE can mine MOON, not only the really tech-savvy), with an updated algo? Funny thing is, that even bitcoiners are thinking about a change of their algo nowadays, to improve the decentralization, as a solution to lead the biggest and oldest cryptocurrency out of the somewhat congested situation now. It falls victim to its own success, so to speak. The newly Mooncoin-added DigiShield only works effectively, if at least a minimum of stable hashrate is available permanently, in order to bridle the big (miner-)fishes when they jump on and off occasionally. |
|
|
|
The Moonlite platform will provide opportunities which an existing system is not able to provide technically.
What are the additional opportunities? |
|
|
|
Good news will be announced on December, 30, the 3rd anniversary of Mooncoin,
regarding exchanges: of course it's important to have MOON listed on big exchanges, however if you don't want to sell your coins asap, there are more important things to do in the near future, e.g. building real Mooncoin infrastructure - a good task for 2017.
Infrastructure? Switch finally to federatedblockchain.eu.org (read the whitepaper) and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901605.msg17196473#msg17196473
Greetz Steve so essentially, you're describing ditching mooncoin's own native blockchain and either encapsulating it into your chain/turning it into a token? we've already seen several rocky roads ahead of ethereum (DAO fork, upcoming PoS chain announcements), if this is your chosen method of implementation. what happens if your chain suffers a failure? james That's a good question. One of the main advantages of Mooncoin is its simplicity. To be honest, I'm not even sure, whether the Moonlite-system is the right way to go, as it puts another layer on top of the already working system of sending and receiving Mooncoins directly. Why not simply tip someone by sending them MOON to their published Mooncoin-address? This system works for years now. |
|
|
|
In my understanding it means that if the application compiled against the vulnerable glibc does a gethostbyname() call it can be owned. Now since a miner typically resolves the IP of the pool it wants to connect to, the miner might be pretty easy to attack as you can relatively easy predict that it will resolve its pool sooner or later. It is unclear to my understanding if the DNS server your miner uses would discard an actual malformed answer that would trigger the vulnerability.
The firewall you have in front of your miners doesn't help anything here (except you have it locked down so much, that the miner only can connect to the pools ip and port, else the attacker just launches a reverse shell with nc or whatever is en vogue right now.
So theoretically you could just remove any DNS servers from your Pi (echo "" > /etc/resolv.conf) and instead of the name of your pool, add the IP of the pool in the web frontend (and hope your pool doesn't switch providers or whatever could make a change of IP necessary).
Other than that running "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" and waiting for a new miner binary to be released there is not much we Terminator operators can do right now. Let's hope this will be before real exploits are being published. AFAIK there are currently only 2 PoC exploits in the wild which make it unlikely that the the average Terminator out there is targeted but that might change quickly once there is for example a module for metasploit.
True I can see that, for some reason I had not though about send a download and run type thing. I was looking, I see the vulnerability for glibc but not really for eglibc, guess going to have to make a test bench somehow eglibc is equally affected from the problem as far as I can judge: i.e.: http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2485-1/I am not that into coding and software as I would like. Do I read it correctly that because I have build the cgminer builds on the raspberry pi and not under Ubuntu that the builds are not vulnerable?? Most advisories only talk about glibc, but I am pretty confident all previous versions of eglibc were vulnerable (no matter if ubuntu or debian): https://www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3480If you still have your build system available, just apt-get upgrade it and then make the binary again, that should be sufficient (eventually a make clean would be advisable before). Could you explain what make does in detail? Does it include the glib-code (or parts of it) in the output or only links to the relevant things? If it does the latter, then would it not be sufficient to only upgrade the system and the previously compiled results then would point to the upgraded, non-vulnerable version? |
|
|
|
holds little supply MOONcoin, hoping for a new site for the exchange of the MOON in the future, may bittrex or poloniex
Bittrex has already responded that it is not convenient for them the litecoin mkt he would quote moon when it reaches the btc mkt. Poloniex requires innovation. But what has more Doge or litecoin? Our next goal is the btc mkt obviously. The bad situation of Cryptsy can be now a help to reach BTC mks in short order. You have to consider that about 100blns are locked in Cryptsy of which 30blns in the hands of the speculators. On bleutrade in the LTC visible book there are now about 2.7 BLNS + 1bln monthly inflation separating us from btc mkt . In theory if we find long-term investors who buy 2.7 we just manage sell orders of miners. How should we be worried about finding investors to 30blns when cryptsy unlocked our wallets The question is: would people/speculators really want to sell their Mooncoins after Cryptsy opens their wallets, even if MOON is in BTC-market again then? Or would it be a "better bet" for them to keep their MOON? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
