We are happy to announce that the Trezarcoin SPV Android Wallet Version 1.0 is now available on the GooglePlay Store https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tzcThis wallet does NOT rely on any third party. Your keys, your Coins. Backup the Seed! Kind regard, ChekaZ |
|
|
|
I am happy to announce the official launch of TZCFarm! TZCFarm is a community funded project which allows to delegate coins towards staking without having to run an own node. Read more about it here: Blogpost: https://trezarcoin.com/tzcfarm/Website: https://tzcfarm.com/ |
|
|
|
Hi! As written in the topic Iam going to sell a CryptoCrowdfunding Page on premise. The code can be changed/modified that it fits for your coin/token purpose. Platform can be viewed here, two examples are prepared. https://trezarfundme.comhttps://pivxstarter.blockcurators.comIf any questions come up, please let me know. The price is 0.38BTC. Kind regard, ChekaZ |
|
|
|
I got this error when trying to use older wallet.dat backup with 0.6.6.2 on ubuntu
v0.6.5.x used v4.8 BerkeleyDB for block index and wallet. Recent releases make use of v5.3.28 BerkeleyDB. You probably need to export your private keys and import them into v0.6.6.2 or v0.7 beta. The latter is better for private use. Is there a way to draw the deps into the binary? I've compiled the old one but can't transfer it to another server as the deps are missing there. - Tried lots of stuff, its Ubuntu 20.04, fixed some errors manually as well as changing some code stuff. But I dont wanna change the code everytime an error pops up. Also probably would be great to have a working binary for people who are not able to compile it. Got really far tho, but now Boost 1.7 has some serious issues with the old codebase. |
|
|
|
|
HardFork is done, as expected the old clients stopped at Block 1,528,000. - PoS has been updated to Version 2 with that HardFork as well as ColdStaking has been enabled. - We also did a 'stealth-upgrade' of ACP. ACP was off for the last 4 weeks but has been enabled again to protect the chain.
ColdStaking offers new opportunities for delegated Staking as well as whole staking pools. We will explore that space and make it as easy as possible for everyone, even if you are not able to host a node yourself.
Thanks to the Team and the Community 🎉
|
|
|
|
Dash interested on getting a CoinKit Membership? -> https://coinkit.deGerman company which provides an on-chain Tipbot/SMM Tool. Twitter, Slack, Discord & Telegram. Lemme know, Kind regard, ChekaZ |
|
|
|
Hey,
I would like to report the following. At the moment, everyone who holds the coin is being scammed by the team behind feathercoin and the exchanges where the coin is sold. To explain the above approach: I own feathercoin that I keep on litebit.eu. I cannot access my funds while it is my property. I have indicated to litebit that I want to transfer the coin to my wallet, but I get the following feedback. Litebit indicates that the coin's creator Peter Bushnell has sent requests to all exchanges where feathercoin is traded, such as litebit.eu, to block people's funds from withdrawing. This is so strange to me, while I have given my money and the currency is my possession, the exchanges can decide, together with the maker of the currency, to refuse withdrawal. If this is true, my question is, why did Peter Bushnell send such an absurd request to the exchanges to block people's funds from withdrawing. There is some weird behind this and all I think is the cash out scam acts. Litebit and the other exchanges are going to sell the funds of people holding it on the exchange when people are blocked from withdrawing their own assets. a big spike will surely come and they will take action. Or the spike to 20 satoshis is now being laundered through people's funds.
Peter Bushnell here. All exchanges have been asked to restore deposits again. I asked exchanges to disable deposits while they upgrade all upgrade their wallets to the latest version and we upgrade the 51% attack protection to a new version. There was a period where the protection was disabled and we did not want exchanges to be attacked during that period. Apologies for the inconvenience. Dear Peter, I work for a detective agency in the Netherlands. My knowledge is broad and therefore I would like to make the following known to you. The moment the currency was blocked by the exchanges for customers to withdraw and / or sell ... at that point a supply of feacthercoin coins was dumped on the market causing the price of feathercoin to drop to 20 satoshis. We thus suspect that the blocking of client funds and the dump on the exchanges and the price hike afterwards, which has resulted in 400% profit for someone, i assume the exchanges, are fraudulent practices that need further investigation. We are aware that the exchanges have dumped coins in the market that was not owned by the exchanges but owned by the customers. Litebit.eu has already indicated that the above assignment was ordered by you, this has also been confirmed by you. We will continue to gather information from customers to take steps on these fradulous collaborative practices with the exchanges. To help us further in our investigation, we would like to ask customers who have an account with bittrex and litebit.eu and who had feathercoin in their possession before May 1 to report this to us, as the facts can then be presented more quickly. loyalbits@gmail.com is my private email where people who feel duped by these practices can leave their report and the report will be included in a report to FIOD. Kind regards. What are you even talking about man. Exchanges closed deposits and withdraws due to an upgrade which is a common practice to avoid complications while the network updates to the newest version. Also not your keys not your coins, if you dont like that you cant move your coins during these times, keep your coins in your local wallet. Whatever you are trying to do here, just stop. Edit*: New account with 9 posts which are all trash, so probably a troll account, you seem to like bashing random topics dont you? |
|
|
|
We've done it! - Trezarcoin Version 2.1 has been officially released! Its one of the biggest upgrades so far which features TrezarMessage inside the Trezarcoin Core GUI. TrezarMessage is a fully decentralized and fully encrypted Messenger running on the peer-to-peer Layer of the Trezarcoin Network. This release also features the requested ColdStaking feature, which allows coins to stake while being not on a hot-node/hot-wallet. We've also updated the Proof-of-Stake to V2! For our lovely Miners, we have removed the Blocklimiter which was long overdue, the legacy code was introduced in 1.0 and made blocks orphan which were found correctly, but too quick, thats out now! Please keep in mind that this update is MANDATORY! ( HardFork at block 1,528,000 ) Please upgrade your wallets before that date, otherwise you wont be able to mine or stake anymore. Thanks for everyone who helped with the testing and brought us where we are today! - You guys are awesome! More to read about the release: https://trezarcoin.com/trezarmessage-2-1/Github to update: https://github.com/TrezarCoin/TrezarCoin/releases/tag/2.1.0.0 |
|
|
|
|
As you might have seen, we are going to publish an update this month. This update includes 2 new core-features as well as the removal of a Mining-Limiter which made valid Blocks orphan, because they were created to fast.
First Feature, long awaited, TrezarMessage GUI!
What does that mean? - We are going to have dedicated GUI Panel for the TrezarMessage, you can add contacts via Button and write like in Telegram/WhatsApp. This is the second step, the third step will building an address book on the Blockchain, so we remove the need of people to exchange addresses/keys completely, if you want to write someone, you can just pick his name off the Blockchain and start. With this unique feature, even the first message is already fully encrypted!
Second Feature is Cold Staking
We think its important to protect the holdings as good as possible, ColdStaking will add another layer of security while staking. Other Coins have already implemented it, we will do it now. You will still need to have a Client/Node running, but your Coins dont need to be on the device anymore.
Along with the release, Iam going to publish some more in-depth information on how to use ColdStaking, TrezarMessage should be self-explaining, but there will also be a short guide.
|
|
|
|
New Trezarcoin Website has been released! -> https://trezarcoin.comIts designed to be intuitive and displays all of Trezarcoins current use cases. |
|
|
|
|
Updated OP with new information.
Steady Development of CoinKit brought a lot of new Coins and new Features:
Changelog:
- Twitter added ( March 2019 )
- Coins added: Lots, see OP.
- Wiki added
- Dashboard added
- Twitter monetized tweet added
- Twitter giveaway added
- Discord features added
CoinKit is the first Tipbot to fully utilize the Lightning Network. Deposits and Withdrawls are possible with Lightning and Bitcoin on-chain.
CoinKit doesnt charge ANY fees, except the on-chain fees which are used to send the transaction over the network.
All transactions are on-chain and can be viewed on the explorer of the Coin/Token which has been sent.
|
|
|
|
Alright I try to explain it again. Mooncoin_Foundation gave the 3 Addresses: - 3 Adresses are blocked via consensus 2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B) 2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts) 2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts) I relayed these 3 Addresses to Peter. Peter used the same technique to block these coins as already done in 0.13.9 Who did implement these protection in first place? -> Barry ( 0.13.9 codebase )How does this protection work? Barry did implement it that way that it blocks all UTXOs that were sent to these addresses, so all TX'es that had a destination to those 3 addresses are blocked. So what got changed in 0.18.1? Same as in 0.13.9 - All Tx'es towards these addresses got blocked, but now on the consensus level instead of the mempool level. These completely ensures that the coins can't be spent. ( On 0.13.9 you could mine your own blocks and include these transactions ) So to sum it up. - This exact protection was in place since the 0.13.9 release as said ( @Michi your 23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 of blocked transactions )Here are the 2 links again to the Github of 0.13.9 and 0.18.1 Protection in 0.13.9 https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160Protection in 0.18.1 https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573Now to the "insecure wallet problem" Mebagger is partly right on that one, 0.18.1 should add the historical validation I completely agree with that. But it couldnt have been done on the initial release, otherwise it would have rejected 0.13.9 instantly which shouldnt be done that way. 0.17 has the historical validation in place which works and was a good job of the 0.17 team, it just should have done ( in my opinion ) after the 0.18.1 set height to set validation in place. But as said, should be added to 0.18.1 whatever that version will be called then, lets call it 0.18.5. So what would need to be done right now is porting the 0.17 historical validation to 0.18.1 and make 0.18.5. About the "forbidden tx" protection, thats up to the community how you guys want to handle that. 0.18.1 - As its part of the consensus right now, if you guys decide to lift that protection, pools and exchanges would need to update on the 0.18.5 release, but again thats up to you. I've talked to Peter and the best would be to modify the "forbidden tx" protection that it only blocks specific UTXOs ( But that would be a new system, not the one that got introduced in 0.13.9 which blocks all UTXOs ) So that issue should have been brought up way earlier, but seems like nobody looked into it until now, as that "issue" persisted for over 2 years ( since 0.13.9 ) release. Happy to help/assist on the 0.18.5 or to clarify any other questions that come up. Kind regard, ChekaZ I implemented the forbiddentx routines way back in Mooncoin 0.10 ( https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L939-L1073). Mooncoin 0.13.9 is not mine, this was done afterwards by Valhalis ( https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet), who based it on my initial port ( https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin-0.13). My forbiddentx routine did its job, but certainly had its flaws; and I have since improved (vastly) my methods for blocking given inputs. Contained within are the blocked funds inputs from the court case I mentioned, which were passed onto me by Mooncoin Foundation. james Thanks for clarifying. 0.18.1 did nothing else than Valhalis did on 0.13.9 then, the same structure of your initial implementation did get carried over. It surely has its flaws as you said, but it wasn't on us to change the original designed protection. We brought up a solution which could be adopted by the communtiy that only certain outputs should be blocked, but again thats a community decision to change the "forbidden tx" protection solution. |
|
|
|
Alright I try to explain it again. Mooncoin_Foundation gave the 3 Addresses: - 3 Adresses are blocked via consensus 2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B) 2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts) 2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts) I relayed these 3 Addresses to Peter. Peter used the same technique to block these coins as already done in 0.13.9 Who did implement these protection in first place? -> Barry ( 0.13.9 codebase )How does this protection work? Barry did implement it that way that it blocks all UTXOs that were sent to these addresses, so all TX'es that had a destination to those 3 addresses are blocked. So what got changed in 0.18.1? Same as in 0.13.9 - All Tx'es towards these addresses got blocked, but now on the consensus level instead of the mempool level. These completely ensures that the coins can't be spent. ( On 0.13.9 you could mine your own blocks and include these transactions ) So to sum it up. - This exact protection was in place since the 0.13.9 release as said ( @Michi your 23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 of blocked transactions )Here are the 2 links again to the Github of 0.13.9 and 0.18.1 Protection in 0.13.9 https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160Protection in 0.18.1 https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573Now to the "insecure wallet problem" Mebagger is partly right on that one, 0.18.1 should add the historical validation I completely agree with that. But it couldnt have been done on the initial release, otherwise it would have rejected 0.13.9 instantly which shouldnt be done that way. 0.17 has the historical validation in place which works and was a good job of the 0.17 team, it just should have done ( in my opinion ) after the 0.18.1 set height to set validation in place. But as said, should be added to 0.18.1 whatever that version will be called then, lets call it 0.18.5. So what would need to be done right now is porting the 0.17 historical validation to 0.18.1 and make 0.18.5. About the "forbidden tx" protection, thats up to the community how you guys want to handle that. 0.18.1 - As its part of the consensus right now, if you guys decide to lift that protection, pools and exchanges would need to update on the 0.18.5 release, but again thats up to you. I've talked to Peter and the best would be to modify the "forbidden tx" protection that it only blocks specific UTXOs ( But that would be a new system, not the one that got introduced in 0.13.9 which blocks all UTXOs ) So that issue should have been brought up way earlier, but seems like nobody looked into it until now, as that "issue" persisted for over 2 years ( since 0.13.9 ) release. Happy to help/assist on the 0.18.5 or to clarify any other questions that come up. Kind regard, ChekaZ |
|
|
|
Hi Michi!
As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:
We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)
These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.
Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.
Wait, you blocked wallet addresses on the say so of one person? Exactly how many wallets did you block, was it 3 or more than that? Hi! The new protection was based on the old 0.13.9 protection which can be seen here: Here's the list in 0.13. https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160New list in 0.18. https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573The list of blocked TXs based on the addresses given. Any TX that has a destination to one of the three addresses given cannot be spent. None of the outputs in the TX can be spent. 0.18.1 went with the design of their original protection in 0.13.9 which stopped TXs as a whole from being used as inputs. 23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 @Michi https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1308Also the addresses & code got sent to Mebagger, he reviewed it before the code was published & didnt have any comments on the blocked tx'es/addresses. Kind regard, ChekaZ |
|
|
|
|
Hi Michi!
As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:
We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)
These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.
Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.
|
|
|
|
I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases. https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?" https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?" https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?" https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0 --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?" https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty()  - "who released this?" So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered? 0.18.1 was a paid job by Mooncoin_Foundation to fix the Blockchain of its previous "doesn't validate blocks issue" & develop "LIKES" as a feature - It got designed to be compatible with 0.13.9 and fix these issues on a set Blockheight 1801000 which ensures that nobody is left behind or on a fork upon the release. 0.18.1 does validate the new Blocks but lacks of historical validation as this would have lead to a fork. - 0.17 did this and forked away alone as it wasnt compatible with the previous version 0.13.9. Historical validation should be added to 0.18.1 but wasnt directly necessary or doable without breaking the consensus instantly. Validation has been restored on the 0.18.1 Client and a fully validating 0.18.1 version can be released. As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ). |
|
|
|
Great, thanks!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
