There were really some plans about official Foundation in 2015, but later it became clear that it would be better for a decentralised project if there are no companies/official entities behind it, that the community decides things and not just a group of old supporters. However, the ANN thread was already started and was quite active. Several times I asked Bitcointalk  mods to change the name of my account. If I created a new account, I would not be able to update the original post of the thread with up to date information. During years there was a disclosure in the original post about my nickname, that there was no official foundation.
I never was and never tried to be a Mooncoin leader. I was updating the original post of this ANN thread according to my understanding of consensus, fairness, ethics, recommendations of trusted members of the community.

The model of Mooncoin development was quite unique and truly decentralised: the community of investors, and tech devs who worked, receiving donations from the community for implementing things, approved by the community, at the same time a tech dev was not just a 'hired' persons, he had his voice, his view and initiatives, and community was listening to his recommendations. There also were active supporters, who represented interests of community by connecting devs to community, or by promoting Mooncoin, by making their channels, groups.
This model, without a dev team and any leader was well balanced and decentralised, it had its own risks, but it was cost of fairness, real decentralisation and true progress according to interests of community.
On the contrary, another, more typical for the most of coins model with an official dev team very often is not so well balanced and not so decentralised like they claim. Dev teams have leaders, duties, formal agreements, roadmaps, but what is more important: they have their own interests and are able technically to impose them to community. Dev teams control Githubs, they decide and make releases. With a dev team there is absolutely another spirit, people feel like they just depend on a dev team and have not to contribute anything by themselves, and often there is no parity, there are politics, bosses, cynicism, biases. Any official dev team means a center. If implemented into a decentralised, 'with no center' crypto project, the model can easily become hypocritical.

The name 'Foundation' turned out to be not good for a decentralised project, it led to perception that someone is a 'boss', or that there is some group which decides things, that was just a bias, anyway. Moreover, I was told that other persons spoke on behalf of 'Foundation' at other channels. I confirm that I communicate only at Bitcointalk, and all messages, posts, announcements, made somewhere else under 'Mooncoin Foundation' are not mine, and were not authorised by me.  In 2015-2017 words 'Mooncoin Foundation' were used unofficially to unite members with more than 1 billion MOON, and that was great. But then old good times passed, and now it is important to be exact to avoid misunderstanding, split of chain and community.

We discussed it with old community members, and we came to the conclusion that the best decision would be to start a new ANN thread, not under a name 'Mooncoin_Foundation', due to the fact that there is no official Foundation behind Mooncoin project. It will be better for perception, and will be a step to the future.

The true history of Mooncoin development, the truth about 62B, SmartLikes, the situation with 0.17 and 0.18:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg54113024#msg54113024
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg53974582#msg53974582

I'm still thinking about accusations which were already made on the last pages of this thread. My proposal  was about an independent dev who could be a peacemaker for the entire community.
It is very sad to see the split of community, bad emotions, accusations, untrue statements, but if someone makes them, it means that something is wrong. During 2015-2016 years Mooncoin ANN thread was a good place with positive emotions, interesting suggestions, normal critics, disputes, there was a big friendly community, unfortunately since 2017 something changed.

I can only guess that they are waiting for exchanges, when they open their MOON wallet for deposits.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon is on 0.17.1 and it shows which pools mine Mooncoin and what the current block count is.
Prohashing block explorer https://prohashing.com/explorer/Mooncoin/ is also on 0.17.1.

https://miningpoolstats.stream/mooncoin
Mining pool stats
Mining-dutch.nl, hash-to-coins are on 0.17.1 and mine,
Prohashing, Aikapool, Zergpool are on 0.17.1 and don't mine currently.

There was one more accusation, that in Jan, 2020 there was an announcement at Telegram about a new release,
and ChekaZ and Peter started to work after that,  'to compete'?


here is Bitcointalk, September, 2019:


here is Bitcointalk, November, 2019:



December, 2019



From these posts you can see that ChekaZ started to work in September, 2019,  it was transparently announced and supported by community members, in November and December of 2019 there was  MoonWord release, positive reaction of community, no one was against it, there was a request for SmartLikes.

Edit:
there were so many false accusations and untrue statements during last pages of this thread, that it would take a lot of time to answer them all with providing each time a proof that they are false.  Not to bring that all to a new thread, I will just edit this post, when I have time, in a neutral way, without unconfirmed statements, just with facts, proven  with citations.

First of all, it was not me who started Mooncoin. The Mooncoin project was announced first by deaconboogie on Dec, 28, 2013 and here is an original ANN thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=389403.0.
I am not a tech dev, I am not able to code in C,C+ and can read and understand the code only to a degree, after explanation. I was trying in the past to compile a wallet, but I don't know how to do it with no issues, basically I can say that I am not able to compile a wallet,I never was given any Mooncoin Github credentials, never coded, never released Mooncoin wallets at Github. I am not a miner, never mined even 1 Mooncoin, I am not familiar and not affiliated with admins of mining pools, exchanges, online wallets, block explorers.

The original Mooncoin code was audited in 2014-2015 by Titan, a dev of Luckycoin, after Dec, 2014 thefts. He did not find security issues in the code. Mooncoin was quite famous in 2014-2015, many tech persons kept an eye on it, no one reported security issues.

When the community asked to start a new Mooncoin thread (the original ANN thread contained outdated info after an original dev left), my understanding was that Mooncoin code was secure (there was some concern about compiled binaries from original dev, that is why walletbuilders were asked to compile new binaries without any change of original code).
I always was asking Mooncoin devs to check it for security again and again.
Recently there was a hint from mebagger2 that there were instructions to compile 0.13.9 wallet without auditing its code.
From my PMs to mebagger2 (sent to his previous account mebagger in Nov, 2017):




Vassilis was also asked to make an audit.
From my PM to polemarhos888:

From my PM to Vassilis suggesting  that he had to  collaborate with Mebagger:
 
Does it mean I am saying that Mebagger built 0.13.9? No, the point is that 0.13.9 was a community thing, not only a dev thing. Someone found Vassilis, some members helped him with issues, someone was auditing the code, other people donated money to Vassilis. Not to blame Vassilis, either, but it is not fair to blame non tech members who donate money to devs and teams that they are responsible for their code after that.  

In 2016 a dev barrysty1e came on his own initiative (he definitely was not just a contractor like walletbuilders, but he really asked for donations from the community). He did a lot for Mooncoin, suggested and implemented some features (fast sync, Balloon hash, MoonRush, Moon SPV) on his own initiative,  he was communicating at Bitcointalk and at Discord, was instructed by community members from Bitcointalk and Discord (I communicated with barrysty1e and connected him to community members who wanted to donate him, the same was when I communicated with Vassilis, a dev who came later again not just to compile a wallet or to code the feature, but as a new responsible Mooncoin dev to stay with Mooncoin over long term).
Everything was done with the consensus of community, and notonly with consensus, it was with full 100% or 99% consensus (only one person sometimes did not agree with some things, and Discord community members did not agree with Blue Moon logo, that is why barrysty1e used their own Mooncoin logo in the wallet release, though Bitcointalk community liked more Blue Moon logo, also I personally asked him to implement SmartLikes, but devs worked not on my individual instructions, otherwise SmartLikes could be implemented much earlier, at least in 2017). Though Vassilis really said he was going to implement SL in the future.
I was waiting and hoped that finally SL would be implemented. It was very interesting for me to see how this tech would work. When finally it was implemented by ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell in 2020! after many years and during all these years community members were asking for that, I was accused that it was done to compete with MooncoinCore team, and/or with other bad intentions. While during all these years I never stated that I was a leader, and my understanding always was that Mooncoin was and had to be community-driven with equal opportunities for all supporters, without any center.

Barrysty1e sometimes was blamed for his protection against move of stolen coins which did not work, however, if there were no protection at all, the situation would be the same in 2018, the problem was that coins were moved, if there were no protection, they would be moved as well, the situation would be just the same. The code was open source and any tech person could read it and suggest how to improve the protection, there were no suggestions. We believed it worked. However, the fact that the protection did not work and that on Jan, 2018 coins were moved to the address of Vassilis, which he transparently posted in his signature at Bitcointalk led to accusations and suspicions. Let's imagine there were no protection at all and coins were moved. There would be accusations as well obviously. So, the problem was not the protection itself, but the fact that these coins exist, that there is big quantity and that if they are removed from supply, it will be good for Mooncoin. My understanding is that rightful owners of these coins agreed to remove them out of supply (by the way, a major owner of these coins who agreed to lose them for the sake of community - agswinner was accused for his decision - that' he decides things').

It is possible to remove coins out of supply whether with coin lock (freeze, protection against unauthorised move which is not irreversible and can be removed with community decision in the future) or with coin burn (destroying the coins). Though initially, in 2018 I thought that coin burn would be better, now I don't support this idea until there is 100% warranty that there would not be any risks with it. Coin burn without a private key is a dangerous precedent, it can be safe technically, but it's not great for perception of blockchain, it affects the entire idea of blockchain.
A better solution probably could be coin lock. BTW, it was done in 0.18.1, with no luck, due to difference in consensus rules with 0.17 (which was released after 0.18) and due to an issue with locked transactions, derived from 0.13.9. Moreover, if even minor part of community does not agree with that, it is not a proper solution, things like coin lock require 100% consensus obviously or there could be accusations like it happened with 0.18.1. I confirm that I never sent to ANY dev OUTPUTS, INPUTS, TRANSACTIONS to lock, never knew and still don't know Michi's address. You never informed me about critical vulnerability in Mooncoin wallet before I told you at the beginning of Feb, 2020 that ChekaZ  discovered it. Even when he released an optional wallet with MoonWord, based on 0.13.9, in Nov, 2019, no one warned that the 0.13 codebase (which was in use since 2017) was insecure. You may want to prove the opposite with a screenshot of messages, or remove false statements.

There was a request about transparency, here is chronology of events 2017-2020:

November-December, 2017
Barrysty1e is not active after completing like he promised Mooncoin wallet with Balloon hash instead of Scrypt. The wallet was not ideal though.

After polemarhos888 found a new dev, Vassilis, Vassilis created a new MooncoinCore Github to develop Mooncoin, mebagger2 advisedto use Scrypt instead of Balloon, that was inspired by him earlier and pre-announced by him when the new 0.13.9 release was ready.


I did help connect Vassilis with the community (however, Vassilis was 'my' or 'our'  dev not more than Mich i or Mebagger) and it was one of the best periods in Mooncoin history when a dev and Mooncoin community  worked together.

There were issues with 0.13.9 and Vassilis worked to fix them, with help of community members:


Jan, 5, 2018, there was a tragic day in Mooncoin history,
62B were sent to Vassillis to the address he posted at Bitcointalk, protection did not stop it. There is a detailed research:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg38039860#msg38039860
Coins from 'locked' addresses were movedto other addressesfor the first time on March, 3 - in 2017, months before Vassilis came as a dev. Now we know that barrysty1e's protection was not in the consensus rules.

The community voted to burn these coins, I also believed that coins had to be burned and suggested that coins had whether to be sent to a burn address, or to stay on their address (even if Vassilis would send coins to authorities, there could be a panic that coins were moved, also taking into account possible PC security issues, a safer solution in that case would be to move a hard disk with coins, and not coins from one address to another, to do it without even opening and syncing the wallet) some people talked about legal issues with coin burn, Vassillis decided to consult with lawyers what to do with coins and to burn no coins until he is sure there will be no legal issues and to leave Bitcointalk and development. I was never informed that anyone, except Vassilis, got an access to these coins, physical or non-physical.
After leaving development, months later, Vassillis gave MooncoinCore Github credentials to polemarhos888, a Mooncoin volunteer and investor, who found Vassillis before, and on June 7, 2018 polemarhos888 informed me via PM that he had sent these credentials of MooncoinCore Github to Mebagger.


On Jun, 11, 2018 I have sent to mebagger2 through PM a detailed description of SmartLikes technology to implement it.

On April, 9, 2019 ChekaZ  spoke to me for the first time and asked if we would like to implement Mooncoin integration into coinkit.de.  

From my PM to mebagger2 on Jun, 10, 2019,  after I was told about possible move of Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake algo:

On September, 6, 2019 I asked Mebagger if he planned any release in 2019.
Received no answer and ChekaZ was asked to build an optional (not fork) wallet with MoonWord functionality.

After the serious vulnerability was discovered and reported by ChekaZ, it required a security fix and update at pools and exchanges immediately.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg53878855#msg53878855 (ChekaZ, CoinKit Founder)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg53882057#msg53882057 (Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder explains)

From my PMs to ChekaZ regarding mebagger2:



ChekaZ and Mebagger2 discussed things, however, ChekaZ told me that he did not see 0.17 release and did not know what was in it exactly, and that Mebagger was not qualified and that Mebagger suggested an unsafe solution, with chain split and that we had to fix vulnerability fast with a solution from Peter Bushnell  with the fork block.

From my PMs to mebagger2 regarding coin LOCK and release of  0.18.1


I also clearly stated to Mebagger, that it is not about any competition, and only about fix of vulnerability and adding other features, requested by the community earlier. Why I did not contact Michi, my understanding was that she was involved with Dogecoin and simply had no time to code Mooncoin wallet, that Mebagger is the only relevant person, responsible for Mooncoin Github and coding since 2018 (though nothing was released then after 0.13.9 by Vassilis), anyway. Logically, if Michi was involved, she would know from Mebagger about so important collaboration.




Why I was saying to Mebagger only about the 1st address to freeze, and didn't mention 2 other addresses from Dec, 2014 thefts? It is important to understand and it can be verified that those 2 addresses were locked in 0.10.5 and in 0.13.9, which was a current version then, I was sure it  was known, these 2 adrresses were already locked years ago and there was nothing to discuss,  while the 1st address with 62B was in question.

Why I was saying to Mebagger that coin burn looks unreal, my understanding was that there was no tech possibility to burn coins with no private key, I asked Mebagger about it before, received no answer, even if it's possible to do it safe technically (it's uncommon thing), anyway it's obvious it's extremely bad for perception of blockchain. To say nothing of possible legal risks, reported by some supporters, it is necessary to consult with lawyers first, if you are involved with coin burn.



This was not answered, Mebagger stopped answering to me, the fork block was moved to Feb, 22 from Feb, 17, ChekaZ recompiled Mac, Windows, Linux binaries with a new fork block, after that we could not delay any longer the vulnerability fix. Moreover, ChekaZ told me that Mebagger did not understand the problem, that he suggested a solution which could be dangerous for Mooncoin chain.
However, much later after the release of 0.17 (by MooncoinCore team) ChekaZ told me that Peter Bushnell reviewed the 0.17 code and it's okay. From their side, MooncoinCore team told that 0.18 is insecure, that it restored validation, but did not restore historical validation which is important for blocks before the fork block. From comments of ChekaZ and Peter (Feathercoin founder) everything was explained:

1. Real vulnerability was lack of validation, historical validation related to blocks before the fork block was not so dangerous, and could be restored without a new fork  and with no difference in consensus rules, just with one more update which they planned to do, but only after the update to 0.18 and AFTER the fork block to avoid the situation with split of chain with 0.13.9, a previous version, which had this vulnerability and was present at exchanges and pools since 2018 (adding historical validation feature immediately and not after the fork block would cause a split of chain).

2. 0.17 was released after 0.18, but about 3 days before the fork block of 0.18 (which happened on Feb,22).
0.17 did not implement any fork block.  Due to that and due to invalid blocks, 0.17 instantly forked, creating a separate chain away from 0.13 and 0.18.  That happened before 0.18 got majority of hashrate at pools.

3. It was important to be on one chain and get more chainwork to be sure that 0.13.9 with vulnerability is no longer main version, but at the same time follows a main chain. Pools and exchanges updated to 0.18 before launch of 0.17. It was recommended to mine 0.18 and not old 0.13, to move hashpower from the insecure 0.13 version to 0.18.

4. Then, on March, 1 - 0.17 supporters used about 1,000 Ghs to mine 0.17,
https://i.imgur.com/uJVhR8i_d.jpg?maxwidth=5000
as a result 0.13.9 joined 0.17, but due to that 0.18 was left alone on a separate chain, because it had coin lock (frozen address feature) in the consensus, while 0.17 removed all protection (they told they were going to burn coins later, and accused that frozen address feature was implemented with bad intentions, but if they would make a new wallet with coin burn, they could easily remove frozen address feature in the new wallet, so what's the point? 0.18 only tried to add additional, though not 100% protection, while 0.17 does not have protection against unauthorised move of coins at all).

5. It turned out that 0.18 had an issue with locked transactions, derived from 0.13.9, it could be fixed with the fork, and historical validation could be added as well, like it was planned, however, one more fork would not be a good solution, especially in the atmosphere of misunderstanding, suspicions and accusations. Also followers of 0.17 could lose their coins by using a wallet on a separate chain.
To avoid split of community and mess with separate chains .17 was chosen:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg54050237#msg54050237
However, both 0.17 and 0.18 were not ideally presented.

During 2 years after Mebagger came as a dev, we all were waiting for him and were thinking that there was ongoing  development. And after 2 years why not listen to experts, if  ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell were happy to assist.
To be fair, Mebagger was answering my messages and questions, especially before 2019 as I can see now from my PM history when doing the research. I don't know what exactly happened between him and ChekaZ, looks like it was a conflict due to disagreement about how to better fix the vulnerability.

ChekaZ gave to Mebagger an opportunity to audit the code before the release (here is a proof, provided by ChekaZ: https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium ), my understanding is that the code is open source and even if it is in public repo, not private one, it can be audited, commited, all issues could be reported before the update of wallet at pools and exchanges.
However, there was no answering, no reaction after Feb, 6, then, when pools and exchanges updated to 0.18 as it was not too much time left to the fork block (which was expected on Feb, 22), on Feb, 19, the 0.17 was released and after that all this flow of false accusations started, not only against me, and that had to be answered.

You did ask to build features on top of 0.17, but it was before I told you that ChekaZ found the vulnerability. ChekaZ told  you did not show the 0.17 code to him before the release.  There was no proof (except talks  and empty promises since 2018) that the 0.17 release was almost ready.

In your PM on Feb, 3 you said that as long as the vulnerability is fixed you're 'totally in agreement' with us, and in your PM from Feb, 4 you agreed with a hard fork 'to push older clients off the network', and even advised how to present 0.18 version:

Maybe that is the point of different understanding of situation:
ChekaZ informed me in Jan, 2020 about the vulnerability and that it was there for years, and luckily there was no attack, but if you know about it and how dangerous it is, the only way is to fix it immediately, if we care about people, about the project. No other way.
You did not inform me about the vulnerability when you discovered it in 2019 or earlier, and did not fix it before 2020.
And in 2020 after Chekaz reported it, at least several persons knew about it, and there was no 100% privacy of communication. Any delay with the release would not be good. The vulnerability was fixed in 0.18 according to 2 -step solution (to avoid split of chain) from Peter Bushnell and ChekaZ before updating at pools and exchanges.
My understanding is that you did not like the fact that those experts (they were independent experts, the solution was suggested, designed and implemented by them  without any advice from us) did not approve your solution which you discussed with ChekaZ, and that you wanted to deliver finally your wallet, no matter with the split of chain or not, while Taranis (as it looked from his posts in March) thought in terms of competition
and  did not accept that it would look like after 2 years his team did not provide a secure wallet, while another dev (ChekaZ) did it. Meanwhile we were waiting for your 'green light' for 0.18.
On Feb, 9 you received the 0.18 code for review from ChekaZ (https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium), you were informed about its main features in advance though.
Finally after several days of no collaboration from you (it looked like the irrational delay was not due to your review, but due to disagreement from Taranis who didn't understand all risks of vulnerability and risk  of chain split with your solution, though ChekaZ said he tried to explain that to him before the release,
finally we decided to make a step, there was an upcoming fork block, the vulnerability had to be fixed immediately and with a safe solution, recommended and provided by the experts. The 2-step solution (1st step, restoring validation with the fork block to let people safely update, 2nd step restoring historical validation without split of chain) turned out to be an ideal target for accusations, as soon as the 1st step is done it is so easy and effective to accuse that the version is 'insecure', 'incomplete', while another version is fully secure (with a split of chain though).
You understood that we were going to fix the vulnerability asap and that there was upcoming fork block in the code (ChekaZ even changed it, waiting for you and recompiled all binaries, including Mac, Linux), but to avoid a leak of information about the vulnerability it would not be a good decision to delay the release and change the fork block again and again.
What could you do if you didn't agree with the version: to inform me about your concerns, to send a list of issues to me or to ChekaZ, to post at Bitcointalk your disagreement after posts from ChekaZ and me about the upcoming release (those posts did not announce vulnerability), to agree with experts, with their  2-step solution. What you did: you stopped communicating with me after my question:
and only on Feb, 19 you suddenly released 0.17, after 0.18 was adopted by pools, and just as experts warned, your solution without setting a fork block height, without 2 steps led to the split of chain and mess. And after that  0.18 was accused of the mess.  
Another accusation was that SmartLikes was implemented with monetary interests.
Community members had been asking and waiting for SL since 2017 or even earlier very actively, with numerous posts. And the entire idea of technology is 'likes'-based system, Mooncoin for Mooncoin, which is rather non-monetary as it could work even if Mooncoin would have no markets at all.
Dogecoin and Elon Musk won't care about Mooncoin.
The project has to create its own value and not hope for someone else, rich and famous.
I don't see another way to defend ideas of SL and the truth, now I must stop my support for SmartLikes, until accusations of 'monetary' interests are deleted and until the community confirms that SmartLikes is implemented on request of the entire community.

For more information please read this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg53974582#msg53974582

Competing teams is a myth, there never was a Bitcointalk team, there is Bitcointalk community, not team.
The absurdity of idea that it was about 'competition', all know that we always were saying 'You are welcome' to devs and teams who were going to develop Mooncoin, added information about them to Bitcointalk topic (try it with another famous coin, and you'll see the difference) though when devs did not care about the project for long time and there were serious risks for users, exchange, pools, there was no choice.
It was necessary to fix vulnerability asap, after all, it is fixed now. That could be done in a much better way, if there were more communicating and less suspicions and accusations.  

I was thinking about some accusations, that there were 'individual instructions' and not the consensus thing. Anyway, when a dev codes a wallet, he does it whether after his own decision, whether after receiving instructions from other members. Instructions can be public, made by different community members via posting at forum, or instructions can be sent via PM, by a member who is a 'bridge' between the community and a dev.  However, if the community agrees with something, asks for it, waits for it, if it is evident for everyone that something is good for the entire community, is it correct to say about 'individual instructions', even if finally these instructions were sent to a dev in a PM by one person who connected a dev and the community?
Another accusation was that things should not be voted at forum, but should be presented to miners via miners or users activated fork. Maybe it works for big coins like DOGE, LTC or BTC. But if there are about 50-80 nodes like in Mooncoin network and we understand that miners mine a coin mostly to sell it at exchanges and are not very well informed about a situation with Mooncoin, and one user can run easily 10 nodes, can we say that miners or users activated fork means community consensus and fair voting exactly in this case?
It worked in this way: community members were asked via posts in the thread and via PM about their decision and a dev was informed, or a dev asked other members by himself, via posting or via PM, some devs communicated also at Discord and got instructions from Discord community members. If even minority of members don't agree with something, for me it is always a sign that something is wrong. However, if I remember correct, until the last events, the only disagreement in the community about what to implement was about Mooncoin logo.

Maybe their project is good, but it's said it is about 'crypto-businesses', while Mooncoin never was a 'crypto business'.

Itis highly recommended to backup your wallet regularly, and especially before every update.
Keep your wallet.dat copy offline. You can rename it like wallet-current-date-wallet-version.dat
Look for your wallet.dat file in    C:\Users\YourUserName\Appdata\Roaming\Mooncoin
or in C:\Documents and Settings\YourUserName\Application data\Mooncoin (Windows XP),
if you don't see the dir with wallet.dat on your PC, then switch on 'show hidden files' in your PC settings.
Your wallet.dat file = your coins, if you lose it or overwrite, you'll be not able to get an access to your coins.
The updateto a new version is 2 steps: saving your wallet.dat and running a new version, in some cases you may have to resync a new wallet.
                                                

Reminder:
don't use 0.13.9 wallet!
Looks like everyone agreed that it had a security issue, very serious vulnerability with block validation.
It was not recommended to use 0.17.1 before, that does not mean it's insecure itself. Only devs and experts can review the code and can say if it is secure or not. Currently  no dev/expert/coder said that 0.17.1 is insecure.
Why it was not recommended to use 0.17.1 before? Even if the wallet (the code) itself is secure, it could be insecure to use a wallet, if it is on a separate chain, when coins go nowhere, let's say you send coins from a wallet which is on one chain, and exchanges are on another chain, your coins will not come to exchanges in this case.
It is important to have all pools, exchanges, services and users on the same chain. It is important to avoid split of chain/community.
Now we move to one chain, it is necessary to stop using other wallets and update your wallet to 0.17.1.

Cryptoid.info block explorer is on 0.17.1 now.

After  the entire situation was reviewed and discussed with community members, devs and independent experts, the conclusion is that the only way for Mooncoin now is update to 0.17.

When 0.18 update was announced and released, there was no certainty about what 0.17 release will contain and will it be secure or not. There was no information that there would be separate chains after the release of 0.18 and 0.17.
Moreover, MooncoinCore devs now confirmed that they are active and really want to continue Mooncoin development, what is also important they took responsibility for the 0.17 code and published it at https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases.
It took almost 2 years comparing to about 2 days (barrysty1e), however it gives hope that the release was prepared carefully. No one yet said that 0.17 release was insecure.
Why not use 0.18.1? It is not compatible with 0.17, which  was released after 0.18.1
0.18.1 was released when there was lack of information and it was necessary to fix the security issue ASAP.

0.17 and 0.18 have different consensus agreements implemented, 0.17 overtook the 0.13.9 & 0.18.1 chainwork so that 0.13.9 now follows 0.17. It is easier for everyone to update to 0.17 and unify the chains that way.


After that the 0.18 wallet can be developed to be compatible with 0.17 and to be an optional wallet. The community will have to come to the consensus what should be in next versions of Mooncoin, and looks like everyone agrees that there must not be different directions of development, different wallets must remain  on one chain, with the same consensus rules, or it would be just chaos.

How to update? First, as usually, you save your wallet.dat file offline.
If you know how it works, you can also export your private keys and keep them in a safe place, offline.
Then you run 0.17 version from https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases.
Please don't use 0.18.1 wallet any longer! It has to be developed first, to be compatible with 0.17.
Please don't move coins until we are on one chain again, or it can lead to losses.

There are different chains now, and any delay with update to 0.17 would lead to additional losses.
There were no big movements of coins after the block 1'801'000 and Altilly, a primary exchange for Mooncoin keeps the wallet in maintenance with deposits and withdrawals disabled.
To miners of 0.18:  please report your losses of MOON related to the update from 0.18 to 0.17, how many MOON you lost and your Mooncoin address for compensation, please report it to agswinner or to me.

Thank you for the information.
My vote is that we have to move to one chain, a new one with consensus rules which are accepted by the entire community, any disagreement with consensus rules means a separate chain.
After that there will be enough pages in this ANN thread for accusations, if there are any which were not already presented.

Ok, I will prove that I am not a boss and that I am not personally interested.
My suggestion to the community:
to invite an independent dev, not ChekaZ , not MooncoinCore devs.
This dev had to be experienced, responsible, trusted, and with respect to decentralisation,
with respect to Mooncoin history and looking into the future,
and not affiliated with current devs, and not affiliated with agswinner and me.

He will start his own Bitcointalk ANN thread, Telegram channel and will unite the community.
I will not participate in important questions when I see that Mooncoin development is in trusted hands, and Mooncoin will remain decentralised with volunteers.
There will be another Bitcointalk ANN thread, and I will be just a topic starter of inactive thread obviously.

Of course, I am still responsible, if coins of normal members were locked by mistake in 0.18, but it had to be proved with research. No one, except Michi, reported it before, or show me a post. After the research and comments from ChekaZ we will know the truth.

Could you show a post with an announcement of 0.17 at Bitcointalk?
Link to Github?
If you say that the project is open source regarding MooncoinCore  Github,
are you fine with working at MooncoinCommunity Github? It is also open source.

Also it is not so simple like you explain. First of all, agswinner and me contacted mebagger2 many times during these 2 years. He rarely answered though.

What is more important, you knew about the vulnerability for months. You did not fix it.
With this vulnerability someone COULD suddenly come and mine the total supply of MOON with low difficulty,
do you realize? Anyone, if you would be informed about the vulnerability,
what would you do? Obviously, fix and update immediately.
However, if you actually don't care about the project itself, you are okay with it. Let someone come and mine all billions. We just will accuse others for that and will make a swap to a new chain? No, this approach is unprecedented. If it would be just a mistake, or a normal delay, I would never speak about it.
Edit: another situation, 0.18 released, like you it or not, why release 0.17 after that, and make another chain? Again the same approach.
You believe it is unsecure? Come and fix it. Why make another chain after launch of 0.18? If everything is open source?
It is the approach, the project risks very much. That is the point.

I already explained about Foundation many times. There is a disclosure in the OP for years.
However, it looks like I am not alone here.
Why do you accuse even without a research? Michi explained already, that transactions, not addresses could be locked in the wallet. It is a technical question, to lock 3 addresses, a dev deals with transactions of these addresses.

Do you deny, that MooncoinCore Github is under control of MooncoinCore team?

Edit:
SmartLikes could move Mooncoin to top coins over long term, would raise network hashrate significantly.
However, Michi said against it, Mebagger did not implement it (a detailed description of SL algo was sent to him in my PM on Jun, 11, 2018).
You don't understand it. For you it is just a 'feature'.
I was thinking on it during several years, beginning from the idea of ML ('Moonlite'). That was a dream that it could replace monetary interests with non-monetary,'likes'-based, Mooncoin for Mooncoin, even if there are no active markets at exchanges. Look at Mooncoin markets, now after 2 years of stagnation it's good if there is $100 volume per day. Which 'pump signal', or 'monetary interests' like you accused? To earn $1,000?
And it is a new tech, and of course theoretically there can be some issues with that, it's normal for something new. With a normal approach, that all could be developed and fixed.
It was implemented into the 0.18.1code by Peter Bushnell.
Not everyone can see its potential and how to use it in a proper way.
The community was waiting for the technology since 2017, there were numerous requests.

As for 12  billion from Dec, 2014 thefts, the consensus to lock these coins was much earlier than the consensus to lock 62b, in 2016. The thefts were significant, exchanges were informed about them, a dev  of Mooncoin in 2014 (peme) reported he had lost all his coins and left development after that, other known and trusted persons lost their coins, thefts affected their lives seriously. That would be extremely unfair to let a hacker to sell these coins and benefit at expense of victims. It was not just a 'whim' when people decided to block these coins when there was a chance in 2016. That indicated to hackers that the community would fight with them. There never was a consensus to unlock these coins, but they are unlocked in mebagger2's 0.17 release.

About Michi's locked transaction:


It was locked in 0.13.9 (which was based on barrysty1e's 0.13.3) and was released in 2017, before Michi came as a dev. Someone sent 1 Mooncoin to many addresses in this transaction. One of recepients was an address which was not legitimate. My understanding is that Mooncoin dev included this transaction (by mistake) when looking for
how to lock addresses with stolen funds, and some legitimate addresses could be affected.
No one instructed any dev to lock transactions, it'a tech question, a dev who codes finds a way how to freeze given addresses (reported by victims) technically. While the protection was in place, I asked available devs (including Mebagger) to review the code and no one reported that there was anything wrong with locked addresses.
However, the 0.13.9 code is open source and transparent, it is in MooncoinCore Github where mebagger2 released 0.17.
If MooncoinCore devs claim they are official and worked during 2 years, is it possible that they just did not read the 0.13.9 code and did not see which transactions/addresses were locked? If they did, then they knew about locked transactions, but then why accuse me that they were locked suddenly in a new 0.18 as a 'vindicative action' or as a 'whim'? It's all not about 'competition', it's about the truth. To discredit someone with false accusations is extremely unfair, and if it is just misunderstanding, why not correct your statements at least when the truth became evident? Accusations remain in the forum's history and people will read them  and think they are true if they don't have enough time for reading the whole story and making a research.



@mebagger2:
Didn't want to answer it, you posted it emotionally and I hoped you would just delete it,
that didn't happen,
not to leave false statements in the forum's history being not answered:

Here is a print screen, provided by ChekaZ:
https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

It's not true. In your PM sent to me on January 29, 2020 when I contacted you to collaborate with fix of vulnerability you asked me a question why I'm not in Marks (Taranis) team.

I never was part of any team. There is Bitcointalk community, there is no Bitcointalk team. Competing teams is a myth.

If you or Taranis quote even one my message, which is so inappropriate that could be mentioned as a real reason for not answering and not communicating, I will send all my mooncoins to your dev fund or to a burn address.

It's not me who started the blame game.
You posted that I delayed your release, to compete or to release an insecure wallet?
By the way, I din't code and didn't release anything and didn't have an access to any Mooncoin Github.
Why would we just need you on board  at all, if we wanted to do that?
You really delayed the release first with asking for SL stress tests, then with irrational disagreement with the safe solution from blockchain expert Peter Bushnell, then just with not answering.  Taking into account that so serious vulnerability had to be fixed immediately.
I said to you:

You did not answer my message from Feb, 6:
the fork block was moved to Feb, 22 from Feb, 17, ChekaZ recompiled Mac, Windows, Linux binaries with a new fork block, waiting for you, after that we could not delay any longer the vulnerability fix. No one from your team contacted me after this message and until the end of February when the flow of accusations came.
ChekaZ posted that you did not show your 0.17 code before the release, and you did not inform me about what it would contain. That is one of reasons why it was not possible to build anything on 0.17, another reason  was that you suggested unsafe solution to fix the vulnerability, with a split of chain.


I did not know about the vulnerability before ChekaZ told me about it in late Jan, 2020

ChekaZ started to work in September, 2019, on optional wallet, released MoonWord in November
started to work on SmartLikes, was posting updates at Bitcointalk and at other channels, he told even Telegram community initially was glad to have him on board. You did not inform  me about vulnerability, I didn't know about it before ChekaZ informed me, it's unfair to blame me for not fixing it before. Moreover, you know that you asked to make additional stress tests for Smart Likes and that delayed the release. The 0.18 release was not mine, it was prepared by ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell (who consulted hundreds of forks), I did not give instructions how to fix the vulnerability, it was their initiative that the vulnerability had to be fixed fast and with their 2 step solution, not to split the chain.
My understanding is that you did not like the fact that those experts did not approve your solution which you discussed with ChekaZ, and that you wanted to deliver finally your wallet, while Taranis thought in terms of 'competition' and  did not accept that it would look like your team after 2 years did not provide the secure wallet, while other devs did it. Meanwhile we were waiting for your 'green light' for 0.18.1
Finally after several days of silence from you we decided to make a step, the vulnerability had to be fixed immediately and with a safe solution, recommended by the expert.




You say that 0.18 is insecure, but you understand that there is 2 step solution, not to split the chain.
It was recommended by widely known and trusted expert Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder, normally anyone looking for collaboration would just agree with the expert, and if there are other minor issues, discovered by you, why not report them? The 2 step solution (1st step, restoring validation with the fork block to let people safely update, 2nd step restoring historical validation without split of chain) turned out to be ideal target for accusations, as soon as the 1st step is done it is so easy and effective to accuse that the version is 'insecure', 'incomplete', while another version is fully secure (with a split of chain though).
It's unfair to accuse 0.18 of all this mess and discredit everyone who was involved with it in eyes of crypto community. If you wanted your 0.17 release, you could just discuss it with us, to show it to ChekaZ, transparently inform  what it will contain, announce it at Bitcointalk, everything could be solved via dialogue.
0.17 was on a separate chain before March, 1, when at your pool 100 times more than regular hashrate was used to make 0.17 a main chain, without this action the 0.17 would remain insecure, on a separate chain.
https://i.imgur.com/uJVhR8i_d.jpg?maxwidth=5000

How could it be possible even in the theory that 'we all have had physical access to the wallet' of Vassilis? Do you realize that we live in different countries, don't know each other in real life? Only polemarhos met Vassilis in real life, how could we all get a physical access to the wallet in question, even if imagine that we all would live in the same town?

I never said you built or released the 0.13 wallet. I said you were the reason barrysty1e's wallet with Balloon hash was not used and that you helped Vassilis. Only you andVassilis could know details of your collaboration. You said your contribution in 2017 was small. But when you replaced Vassilis about 2 years ago, in 2018, took over his Github with 0.13.9, was it not important for you to audit the code? We all were using this insecure wallet till Feb, 2020.  We all were not coders and were sure you're working, caring about it and we just trusted you.

And even before, from my PMs sent to your previous account 'mebagger':

You answered:

I also asked Vassilis to audit the code:
from my PM to polemarhos888:

And in 2018 a dev, recommended by Cointopay (MoonCoinTrev) was invited to audit 0.13.9 after known events, unfortunately, the initiative was blocked by Telegram group, the dev refused to work after their accusations:


I mentioned your contribution not to blame you or anyone. Before the tragic event with 62 B  it was one of the best periods in Mooncoin history when a dev and Mooncoin community  worked together.
The point was that 0.13.9 was a community thing, not only a dev thing. Someone found Vassilis, some members helped him with issues, someone was auditing the code, other people donated money to Vassilis. Not to blame Vassilis, either, but it is not fair to blame non tech members who donate money to devs and teams that they are responsible for their code after that.  
Vassilis and 0.13.9 were blamed for broken protection, but first move from 'frozen' addresses happened on March, 2017, months before Vassilis came. And why barrysty1e is blamed, if he did what he could. No one knows everything in crypto. And if there were no protection, coins could be moved as well.

About coin lock in 0.18, my understanding that coin burn without a private key would require a fork anyway, it means that coin lock never competes with coin burn (one who makes coin burn, easily removes coin lock in the release) coin lock just adds 'better than nothing' protection not to leave coins completely unprotected.  I thought we discussed it before the release, but you posted that you didn't understand why coin lock instead of coin burn.
From my PMs to you about coin lock:
I now see that I didn't mention 2 other addresses from 2014, but my understanding was it's known as they went from previous versions, without saying, nothing new, while the 1st address was in question.

On Jun, 11, 2018 I have sent to you a detailed description of SmartLikes technology to implement it.
After more than 1 year passed and there were no results, we started to think about whether to invite someone else, you said that you didn't mind:

Why I did not contact Michi, my understanding was that she was involved with Dogecoin and simply had no time to code Mooncoin wallet, that you are the only relevant person, anyway I thought that if Michi was involved, she would know from you about our collaboration.
I was thinking that she was not involved any longer,  at least not involved actively, I asked Michi in March, 2018 (after she compiled a Mac wallet) whether she would like to be a lead dev, if the community would agree,
No one minded, and in 2018 it looked like Michi was onboard, but there were no  messages from Michi since 2018, no single post at Bitcointalk, before these events,
that made me think that she just had no time to work with the project.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31799;sa=showPosts
No posts between 2015 and March, 2020.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1938927;sa=showPosts
Only 2 posts in March, 2018.


No support? Coinexchange issue was not about the vulnerability with validation. It was a double spend while the hashrate was very low due to long stagnation with development. The fix of issue which you mentioned was the initiative of compensating (by agswinner) lost millions of MOON to Coinexchange for re-enabling Mooncoin wallet, deposits and withdrawals.
But you did help by contacting them and reducing the number of coins to pay. I thanked you for that and asked members about donations to your team.

My PM to Taranis (2018)

On  April, 2 in 2018 mebagger2 asked my opinion about your group, probably deciding to join you or not, and I told him that I didn't know you, however, Mooncoin was decentralised and any team was welcome until it did good things.

Why so immediately?
Even without a research?
Your team first accused me that I am just a name, then that I am responsible for six years of Mooncoin development.
The truth is that the community invited devs and community members donated money for their work and some members participated in their work, not only from Bitcointalk community.
Devs were different. Barrysty1e was quite an independent dev, and was close to Discord community.
Vassilis also collaborated with Discord community, not only with Bitcointalk. He also had his own opinion and did not burn 62B how it was instructed by the community. My understanding that only he has an access to the wallet with 62B. He posted and confirmed that this is his address. How do you think, if he was so shocked that stopped development after receiving 62B, would he give an access to his wallet to someone else?

I never instructed to lock 1,500 transactions. It is a technical question, and I am not a tech person.
Discuss tech question with tech people. Whether 0.18 secure or not. If Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder believes it is secure, why should I trust you and not him?

I only know that in the first half of 2018 Vassilis sent Github credentials to polemarhos and he sent them to Mebagger2. Mebagger2 is part of MooncoinCore team, 0.13.9 is at MooncoinCore Github. People have been using it for 2 years. Who is responsible for issues with the wallet? Me, not a tech person, or devs who keep a wallet at their Github and they said they worked hard all these 2 years how to improve this wallet.
However, the fact is that in Feb, 2020 the 0.13.9 wallet which pools, exchanges, users used, and which was under control of MooncoinCore team since 2018, had a big vulnerability with validatiom, which allowed an attacker to mine blocks fast with low difficulty,
to mine billions of MOON in a very short period of time. You told you knew about it, but you did not fix it till Feb, 2020.

No, I never thought about you as a competitor. We think different, we live in different worlds.
All this stuff is not for me.  I do not want to be CEO of Mooncoin, and it is not possible technically in a decentralised project. 
First, we should see a normal research about locked transactions.

No, untrue.
Edit: Vassilis, a dev of 0.13.9 never was 'my' dev. Vassilis was not found by me, was not bound with a contract, any formal agreement, was not donated by me, he was a dev of the community, wanted to work with the project over long term.
Mebagger2. You confirmed that you are part of his team, or he is part of your team,
he contacted me in 2017 (his previous account was 'mebagger', without'2') and told that barrysty1e's new wallet is based on exotic and likely insecure BalloonHash instead of Scrypt, and that is not good.
The community supported mebagger's view and started to build a new 0.13.9 wallet, Scrypt-based.
Mebagger was helping Vassilis, together with other tech persons.


I was quite inactive then. Anyway I am not a tech person and never had an access to Mooncoin Github.
If I were a dev, then I would definitely check everything what I release in my Github. It is a big responsibility.


However, I am not a tech person, and only can trust or not trust devs, based on their reputation, their activity, based on what the community and experts think about them. I trust ChekaZ and Peter, they reported vulnerability and fixed it.If ChekaZ would be a bad guy, he could just mine billions of MOON fast and dump them, that was the vulnerability. ChekaZ explained that we're lucky there were no attacks in Mooncoin history exploiting this vulnerability. My understanding is that otherwise block explorers would show abnormal increase of current supply.

I did not know about vulnerability before ChekaZ informed me about it in Jan, 2020, when working on SL, and he immediately suggested a solution from Peter Bushnell to fix it.
That had to be fixed fast, like Bitcoin inflation bug. If any attacker would discover the vulnerability, the Mooncoin chain would be ended very fast, with absolute losses for all holders.
Mebagger2 was contacted, it turned out that he knew about the vulnerability for months.
Peter Bushnell, a blockchain expert, Feathercoin founder and ChekaZ were happy to assist mebagger2.
Was it not collaboration?


Peter and ChekaZ insisted on their safe solution, without a chain split.

Again untrue. If there is a proof that in 0.18 wallet there are blocked addresses of innocent members, which were not locked in 0.13.9, then, yes, ChekaZ and Peter made a mistake and I am also responsible.
However, if coins of innocent members were locked in 0.13.9, this wallet was during 2 years in your hands, it is at MooncoinCore Github. This wallet was built with  help of mebagger2, by Vassilis.
Actually, the question why innocent members funds were locked in MooncoinCore 0.13.9 wallet, if it will be proven that0.18 only took these blocked transactions from 0.13.9.
Thus, if it is proven, then 0.13.9 MooncoinCore team are responsible for that, and anyway they are responsible for the fact that during almost 2 years there was a big vulnerability in the wallet which could lead to the end of chain just in several hours.
You accuse, but don't see evident things. You call white black and black white. What for?
Can you just tell what it is all about? What are your suggestions?