I never "said anything against smartlikes".  I have no idea where that even came from. But I have no idea where a lot of things came from at this point.

 I said that they weren't being prioritized, on our side, over fixing and securing the chain. That's all. If that is "against", then we have bigger problems.

This crap about 13.9 being in "our hands" - look, 13.9 was *done* when we started work. There's a REASON we abandoned most of its code and rebased it. This accusation of "Well, you didn't fix 13.9 so you can't talk!" - 13.9's codebase wasn't worth salvaging. We tried, we turned around - that's part of why things took as long as they did.

This isn't a sporting event. But M_F and fans are still vying for "the win" it seems.  If ANN is the entirety of the community, and we're doing consensus by forum posts and votes vs the actual f*ing blockchain (UASF/MASF) - and said community is happy with a "bounty-for-demanded-development" model, then maybe you're all perfectly happy with the house of cards you're building. And it IS a house of cards. Not a "foundation".

What do you guys think I even have to gain by speaking out in here?  My holdings are locked, and I've certainly not been personally enriched off of this.  I'm only here because I've been involved since the Deaconboogie days, believed in the community with its close crossover with Dogecoin, and wanted to help out.

But, hey! You're INVESTORS. Maybe it'll get a "PUMP SIGNAL!!" before it all falls apart. "Lambos" and what not. People who think that "The Wolf of Wall Street" is some kind of aspirational story, not a warning about a downfall.

But go ahead, keep paying bounties to mercenaries to implement hot buzzwords while no one persistent sticks around to do the maintenance. Because maintenance isn't sexy.

This is exactly why we're so slow to release over at Dogecoin.  We know a huge economy is riding on our changes and if we move too recklessly it'll hurt a lot of people.

EDIT: Yeah, M_F I get it, we weren't "fast enough" for you.  OK, Boss.

So, a TX can contain more than one destination...

So, if anyone else's coins were caught up in those transactions; just with the bad luck of being in them - in other words, if other outputs (UTXOs) were contained in those TXIDs,  too bad, so sad, you're collateral damage?

This doesn't sound like a good way to do things.

Furthermore, you must be a bit confused about how consensus and the blockchain is intended to work.  Consensus is not arrived at by a guy asking for a show of hands on a forum.  The 62B burn would/should have been agreed upon by the community or miners (MASF or UASF) accepting a fork which burns the coins, when presented to them.

You acting as "Boss of Mooncoin" and telling a hired gun to add transactions to a list without question, is not the way to go about this. 

Nevermind that the "62b" burn is now creeping in scope to "62b … and some others that M_F thinks should be burnt!" If there was a 'vote', I certainly did't' get to participate.

The fact of the matter is, even if you do feel that Mooncoin should be governed by you, a single guy, asking for a show of hands and then delivering a diktat - your guys cast your net too broad by banning hundreds of input txids, versus "three addresses" of your choosing. 

Whether this was done intentionally or mistakenly doesn't really matter, since "Because Mooncoin_Foundation told me to do it" is not how blockchain consensus is supposed to function under any circumstance. 

M_F : You can say till you're blue in the face that "0.18 only blocked 3 addresses" but this is NOT THE CASE.   As ChekaZ JUST reiterated, *addresses* were not blocked.  INPUTS were blocked, and hundreds of them were. 

I'll say it again to be clear: You claim "3 addresses were blocked", but that is simply not true, and it's there in code:  transaction INPUTS were blocked. Including inputs that consist of coins in my personal wallet.

In a commit, as you know, of course, the commit comments do not matter. Only the code does, and the only place where the three addresses you mention appear, are in the commit comments.  What follows is a list of hundreds of 80-bit TXID prefixes.  Not addresses. Transactions. Inputs.

I am not going to list my addresses here out in public just on your command. However I can assure you that no, it is NOT one of the three you mentioned; however that does not matter because the ban list does not consist of addresses, but txids.

Perhaps your contractors cast too wide of a net, but the result is the same.  Your repetition that only three addresses were blocked has no bearing on reality, since absolutely anyone is free to look at the code and see that that is not the case.

Yes, I did try to send coins and yes, 0.18 blocked them, as I detailed, with screenshots and log excerpts, plain as day, several posts ago.

These are facts, not opinions.   0.18's banlist blocks my coin inputs, and that was discovered by me trying to send coins in the process of performing a test when we were attempting to bring the 0.17 and 0.18 wallets back into interoperation.

I don't know how I can be any more clear, and I don't know how you can refute what is in code and on the blockchain.  You're free to look at the txids, recent transactions, and inputs -- it's all out there in the open, as I posted it yesterday.  This isn't something that can be "debated".  This is what the blockchain does; it records these things, and the fact of the matter is inputs in my wallet have been blocked in 0.18, causing my coins in my wallet to become immovable.

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.)



This transaction leads to my wallet:




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.

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?

The miners and the coins will indeed have magic - the magical ability to disappear.

I'm guessing ipoMiner still hasn't been paid from LTCGear for 12/18...  Has anyone else seen 12/18 payouts in their HashX account?

I'm aware this is due to LTCGear going a bit shifty, not ipoMiner, but just wondering if I'm missing a thread or any info.

I'm in agreement with you right now on GAW.  Their "interactive activities" and "games-in-a-miner" approach is causing my eyes to roll out of my head.  Press 12 buttons twice a day and you may get > 1Mh/s for $50!  Please. Give me a break.

At least i'm not the only one without a payout from Genesis, but I sure hope they make it right, fast. I'm beginning to wonder if there's *any* mining company we can trust...

I haven't gotten any payouts for yesterday either. Something seems wrong. Sent a support ticket on it, but its ~9AM GMT now, we should have seen the 9/26 payout - at least on my account, it seems that payouts have come to a halt.

Everything was going great, so I'm not sure what's going on now...
So some other folks here are missing the 9/26 payout too?

100 moons came through. (And FYI, know it's a small amount but no problem bouncing those back to you as it's the right thing to do.)

So I'm not sure what's causing the intermittency. Could it be peers that are on the wrong fork? (Is that even possible?)

Also emailed AltExplorer.net to let them know their chain is incorrect. (I presume you will NOT see the transaction you just sent, on AltExplorer's moon explorer.)

Sorry for the delayed response: 2Eo1PkfG6Rs8TnQpaaVxMUpH32tTFJaVn2

Windows wallet, yes.

One withdraw from mooncoinpool.com: failed.
Next withdraw from mooncoinpool.com: succeeded.
One withdraw from Cryptsy: failed
Another withdraw from Cryptsy: failed.

Earlier tried deleting the entire blockchain and re-synced from scratch. No change, still sporadic receipt of transactions.
Verified for sure that this is the current, updated, post-KGW-fix mooncoin wallet.

Looks like we have a really bad fork problem, guys.  I absolutely am aware of the KGW hard fork, but it appears to not be working as intended.  May want to look at the latest posts in /r/mooncoin on reddit...

Sporadic transactions from pools, many peoples wallets seem to sync to one fork or the other (even when updated),  pools appear to be sending to both forks intermittently as well.

Some have been able to withdraw from exchanges such as Cryptsy, I cannot - even though I deleted my blockchain earlier today and am running Wallet 1.862.1.

Something's gonna have to be done here soon because both forks appear to be getting legs and the wallet seems to like both of them from time to time (and maybe depending on peers.)

One can be seen on AltExplorer, the other on Mooncoin ABE.

Hey everyone, just figured I'd let you know: Appears that Mooncoinpool.com is on the wrong fork.

Informed them via their IRC (nobody was around), but it seems as if they haven't updated their wallet. Lost ~184k mooncoins.
AltExplorer is also on the wrong fork. (Different from Wallet 1.862.1 / current).

My lost transaction, in block 69188 ... The transaction to 2bEGhenFNFs6swUTFDV9iYAYsuKxBrdgsL: Amt: 183658.blah

As seen, in AltExplorer (wrong fork from Wallet 1.862.1)
https://altexplorer.net/block/b42f37d74100060f8d80b88efe86551083340d4de1cb067cc0114b6dc795a685

Actual Block 69188 in Mooncoinpool ABE, the transaction isn't there.
http://mooncoin.info/abe/block/f1eeed8ba31caaa127607bd10dd9b6d2eee16f7f1f48e7db492ad21fb8bae40f

... So, everyone beware, I guess.
Seems they didn't get the memo about the fork/update, so...
I learned the hard way so you don't have to.

Just wanted to say - ended up over here from Reddit (funny enough was here years ago for BTC) - really great to see the activity going on in regards to Mooncoin here. Been gathering moons since launch day, don't plan to stop.

Anticipating the new version and, good work guys!

I had nowhere near "100+btc" in my account, I've responded to their letter asking for settings/etc several times, but still big fat zero.  I just wrote them again (50BTC: In email, not here.) so we'll see.

Now, fast-pool.com , which is run by the same guys as dogepolis, is doing the exact same thing as dogepolis.  Average block finding was 2-5 minutes, now the pool is at >950%, has been chugging at that for about 2 hours without finding anything or doing any payouts.

Everyone's free to draw their own conclusions here.  Maybe it's "another fork", but.. 'curiouser and curiouser'.


EDIT: it's moved on and now there's unconfirmed payments again...  so guys - maybe try the same thing to get it going on dogepolis? hm?

Viatorek,
How come every other pool seems to be recovering? You talk about other pools doing manual payouts, but you aren't.

• Dogehouse.org is doing manual payouts - and auto payouts - (even though they haven't updated their message. I got an auto payout this morning.).
• Fast-pool.com is doing manual payouts.
• Multipool.us, one of the pools that wanted to stay on 1.4.0, is now doing both auto and manual payouts.
• Hashfaster is staying on 1.4.0 for the time being but forced themselves to resync to the right blocks. They are doing manual payouts.

Dogepolis is NOT even doing manual payouts. Dogepolis is KEEPING COINS.  Dogepolis is also *not finding any blocks* and every single other pool is. This is unique to Dogepolis. The fork is old news and most reputable pools are addressing it, not just staying on the old fork and keeping coins.

Again: I've heard from the dogecoin developers and the concensus is: the pools got together and chose the correct fork, and they're all on that now.

I'm guessing Dogepolis was not part of that discussion and is not on the right fork?
The longer you guys blame this on the fork, the less credibility you're going to have.

1) Why aren't you answering emails?
2) Again, why is Dogepolis the only pool repeatedly "bumping into 1000%" and not progressing onto any other blocks for 3 days now?
3) Why is Dogepolis refusing to pay out even confirmed coins in people's accounts that were there before the fork?
4) Why has Dogepolis disabled both auto AND manual payout whereas you've even said other pools are running manual?
...(Allthough, other pools actually are beginning to do auto payout now.)
5)How come the fork issue appears to have been mitigated and moved on from with everyone else, except Dogepolis?


... And now you're saying "I don't think Dogepolis will survive this." - sounds like an excuse to go dark with everyone's coins.
If this is what you're considering: please, don't be "another one of those pools".
Charge 1% fee if you want to haul in coins from pool operations. I certainly don't give a damn about a fee if the mining is good.

Can you answer these questions?
If you're waiting for the dogecoin developers to magically move you onto the right fork, it's not going to happen.
You need to do it yourself. The fork issue has been resolved, so, get with it:

A) Update Dogepolis's wallet to 1.5.2 (backing up the wallet data first), or if you want to stay on 1.4.0, delete the existing blockchain data.
B) Delete the existing blockchain data files and block index file,
C) Move Dogepolis' wallet data back in,
D) Allow it to sync in 1.5.2, (or even 1.4.0 with blank block data) which will get it on the CORRECT fork,
E) Wait for transaction verification and new blocks and carry on with life.

I'm sorry, I've been in the crypto game since 2010 or so and I'm really, really sick of this whole "Oh my, we've been hacked and lost all of your coins!" or, "Oh bother, there was a network error and we lost all of your coins!" crap.  It's like a broken record now, and a lot of us are REALLY tired of it and can see it coming a hundred miles away.  The whole pattern of "Start a pool, get it popular, then get """"hacked"""" or have a """"crash"""", and then go dark / reset from scratch and keep the coins" is almost becoming a meme at this point.

Answer the questions and follow the steps and the community will give Dogepolis another chance.

If you sit there and remain the only pool left that hasn't dealt with the fork, then, yeah, people are just going to leave and never trust you again. But who knows, dogepolis' current wallet.dat value may be all you care about right now, and you're just waiting for the remaining coins to trickle in before the remaining miners wake up and leave, before absconding.

I hate to put it this way, but when you're dealing with other people's work and money,  you need to either sh*t or get off the pot.

From what I can tell, they disabled manual payout.  I have around 1000 doge in there, and my auto payout is set to 100 doge -- no payout happening.

I'm guessing what they're doing is keeping it online until all of the hashing drops off (as they're still making doge right now, because some people probably 'set and forget' their rigs ; they'll sure be having a rude awakening soon) -- and then once it does they'll shut the site down and it'll disappear.

No response from support emails for me, no autopayout, manual payout disabled.... 

Banner says "Wait until the doge devs fix problem" - as far as I know, every single other pool and site has "gotten over" the fork and with 1.5.2, the issue is a non issue and it's in our past.

Dogepolis seems to be trying to buy time, I'm guessing, by blaming it on the fork.   But, this is crypto. I had BTC at 50btc.com.   With crypto, it seems like there's a 33% chance that anything you involve yourself in will be a scam to take the coins and run.

At this point, unless the admin does something like, today, I'm pretty confident (unfortunately) that this is a scampool that will soon go dark with all of our coins.