Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2018, 12:32:54 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 65 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 49275 funded addresses. 2,135,729 txs. 5 block explorers on: May 03, 2018, 08:41:08 AM
"You obviously make no effort, to really help investigate on how the movement of the said to be "locked" coins to the one of the former devs wallet could happen. Instead it seems, that this issue should be swept under the rug, as good as possible. As long as this is not worked on and investigated as good as possible and people see, that devs help on this and try to explain with their best efforts, Mooncoin is no option for serious crypto-investors."

I don't think crying over moved coins helps anyone move forward in anyway. It's not constructive really. The fact that the previously "locked" coins got moved does mean that the only person that really truly understood all the components in that function was James (I didn't fully understand it). Pointing fingers doesn't help anyone really. I did post a method of burning the coins some time ago. I believe it is a valid method and once the coins are burned and the transaction is checkpointed, I believe it will be permanent. As of today, I have only ever had one non-technical person even attempt the process I put forward that would move this issue forward, throw it in a coffin, nail it shut and bury it forever six feet under. So that the efforts of the community can be focused on new features. Has anyone bothered to test building burn addresses? Does anyone dispute the burn method will work? Does anyone need help testing? Thankfully the coins are in a wallet that is known and can be burnt this time in a way that is fully understood and not able to be undone accidentally by a new dev team.

No one is "pointing fingers". But things need to be cleared up.

Regarding the "burning" of the coins: Ask your lawyer about this, what would be the best, if you were in the same situation as the one who "received" the coins now. It is not an easy one.

Talking about "crying over it": you should get over the fact, that the coins most probably won't get burned at all, considering the legal situation in all developed countries, and in such one Vassilis is living. This is, why it is better to finally accept the fact, that Mooncoin has a very large supply and try to do the REAL work, in order to gain attraction by serious investors: investigating on how fails could happen in detail, in order to learn from it and prevent something similar in the future. Remember: programming often times is trial and error, because you'll never know, whether there are unconsidered bugs and when they occur. But real bad coding is: not learning from previous errors.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 49275 funded addresses. 2,135,729 txs. 5 block explorers on: May 03, 2018, 07:25:47 AM
Regarding the movement of coins:
Why only refer to the open source-code being available for experts to look at? That does not answer the questions. The dev of the code should be here and wholeheartedly ready to explain how the "locking" of the coins was planned and how this could fail, simple as that. It is a main part of his job and is common standard in crypto-world and IT in general. The detailed analysis of a malfunction is a must, to show competence, as well as dedication and is the prerequisite to regain trust in a product and the developer/team/company. And last but not least: the investors deserve that.

You obviously make no effort to really help investigate on how the movement of the said to be "locked" coins to the former devs wallet could happen. Instead it seems that this issue should be swept under the rug, as good as possible. As long as this is not worked on and investigated as good as possible and people don't see, that devs help on this and try to explain with their best efforts, Mooncoin is no option for serious crypto-investors.

if there is sufficient need, i'm more than happy to give a detailed explanation of how the locking works.

however if its just for yourself, i just see more disagreements and time wasted. i've seen over time you are not a programmer nor do you possess much in the way of low-level understanding as to how cryptocurrency works. the coin locking has existed since december 2016 - and no interest has been shown in it until now, until after other people have forked the wallet code, at which point stolen funds did move.

mooncoin has been a fairly good example to me of the strange way in which cryptocurrency works; essentially the developer does all the work, investors then purchase the coins off the exchange, or mine it themselves - under the 'whim' that they are supporting the currency and its development. even after it was becoming obvious that mooncoin was being put off due to my workload (ie. supporting myself, roof over head); i still managed to get the initial 0.13 codebase out; to find not even mooncoin's supporters cared enough to approach the exchanges, get them to update - menial tacts where i simply didnt have the time.

it is great when everyone has ideas and strong opinions about how things should be; but if there is noone actually doing work, what is the point?

james

Hi James,

as I already said in the above posting to Mooncoin_Foundation: why not simply try to explain in short, how the locking mechanism was intended to work and how it now failed in your opinion, if it wasn't a 51%-attack? It does not help anybody, to say who knows about crypto and who not and on what level. As said above about Jeff Bezos already, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did not need to be the best programmers in the world, to build up some of the best known brands of all time.

Transparency is not only "for me", but discussing this is for Mooncoin, as it shows, that people are interested to professionally deal with problems, if they arise. Remember, many people in forums only read and don't post. So maybe you would not even recognize that these people are very interested in transparently working on the issue and getting a sufficient explanation for what happened.

Thanks and best regards
coinflow
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 49275 funded addresses. 2,135,729 txs. 5 block explorers on: May 03, 2018, 07:10:50 AM
re: coinflow,
I'm not able to explain how barrysty1e's protection worked, because I'm not an expert.
I told many times, I'm an investor. I'm not even a miner (you are a miner).

1) Vassilis was invited, he made a review on barrysty1e's protection
2) barrysty1e can explain by himself
3) mebagger is a crypto expert, he reviewed the code
4) independent devs, invited by Discord community investigated the code
There have been several outside developers who have done direct comparisons of the old MOON GitHub and the new
GitHub and have discovered that, besides the bit of work done on the desktop wallet, nothing else has yet been accomplished.
5) a dev, recommended by cointopay.com (Trev), now reviews the code,
what do you need more?

I will remind that you personally actively helped Vassilis work on a new release and fix issues with txs:

I just fixed today the pool mining section and the transaction issues..

we passed "key" block #1180751 with 73(?!?!?!!??!) transactions! Few more tests and tomorrow i will inform all the pools to make an update!

I must thank public @mebagger, @coinflow, @GBLASS and @Laidback!
you guys spent your time with me and your resources!

Thank you for your contribution to the Mooncoin community!

You may want to explain us how it happened that coins were moved as you better know the tech side and even helped Vassilis work on coding in December, 2017.


I tried to help people with less technical understanding all the time, as you know. But I get less involved more and more, as I see people not really want to solve problems, but only are focused on how the price can be driven up.

I have already explained, how the attacker managed to move the coins and there was more than enough time now to submit another explanation. But obviously Vassilis isn't available anymore and barrysty1e wastes his time with doing explanations on how someone knows something about crypto or not. If James knows that much about crypto (remember: "knowledge" about crypto is not the ability to code, just as Jeff Bezos would not necessarily know to code himself to know how selling goods in the web really works ...), then at let him explain how the movement happened, so that anybody interested in Mooncoin can make educated decisions on how to proceed. If he isn't interested in this, why would he post anyway? I don't need entertainment. I have also already explained, that serious investors need confidence to invest.

As I have already explained, it was a 51%-attack: the attacker possessed the private keys of the "blocked" Mooncoins to be moved and managed to move them, when he was in control of more than 50% of the hashrate in the moment he moved them. That is, why the network accepted the confirmations, despite of other wallets normally would block the transaction based on their code. These wallets carried on when the attacker left, after he had managed to move the coins. It was effectively a temporary hardfork done by the attacker to move the coins. As long as barrysty1e or someone else does not post a better explanation, which we can discuss, this is what happened. Maybe barry should first invest his time to explain why the Mooncoins in moonrush.org are gone without people having the chance to access them anymore (which was asked here sometimes and barry being silent), before he tries to explain, who knows about crypto and who not.
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 49275 funded addresses. 2,135,729 txs. 5 block explorers on: April 17, 2018, 07:46:22 AM
1. SmartLikes is rather an idea, direction for real use of Mooncoin. It's flexible. It can be implemented in one way or in another. When versions of SmartLikes were proposed before, the community saw descriptions and commented on that. People were able to try previous versions in a test mode. People (except coinflow) never were against SmartLikes. Posts are transparent.
2. After all, SmartLikes doesn't affect the Mooncoin network, it's a project on top of Mooncoin, people suggest other projects also, and they have their right to suggest their projects, why in coinflow's opinion there is no right to suggest SmartLikes as one more project?
3. People voted by their posts in this ANN thread, remember, that Telegram, Discord and other channels were created only several months ago, there was no other transparent way to get the opinion of the community except asking in this ANN thread. And even now people from other channels (who post in this thread from time to time) want to see SmartLikes launched. The consensus is clear. SmartLikes is definitely direction for real use of Mooncoin, which was approved by the community. The community will be able to choose to use or not to use the new version of SmartLikes, and will be able to discuss it, to suggest modifications etc. transparently in this ANN thread.

As for locked 62B, the code of Mooncoin is open source, both, old (made by James barrysty1e) and new (made by Vassilis) was and is always available for revisions by experts from the whole crypto community.


As said: as long as no details about "Smart Likes" are available, you can consider it as not a valid thing to think further about, as no one can really evaluate, how it is planned to be implemented and hence cannot make an educated decision.

Regarding the movement of coins:
Why only refer to the open source-code being available for experts to look at? That does not answer the questions. The dev of the code should be here and wholeheartedly ready to explain how the "locking" of the coins was planned and how this could fail, simple as that. It is a main part of his job and is common standard in crypto-world and IT in general. The detailed analysis of a malfunction is a must, to show competence, as well as dedication and is the prerequisite to regain trust in a product and the developer/team/company. And last but not least: the investors deserve that.

You obviously make no effort, to really help investigate on how the movement of the said to be "locked" coins to the one of the former devs wallet could happen. Instead it seems, that this issue should be swept under the rug, as good as possible. As long as this is not worked on and investigated as good as possible and people see, that devs help on this and try to explain with their best efforts, Mooncoin is no option for serious crypto-investors.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 47535 funded addresses. 2,109,255 txs. 5 block explorers on: April 16, 2018, 08:00:12 AM
3) Discard Smart Likes and concentrate on what is important (get a new dev and a flawless wallet with proper support for the community by the dev who can answer questions like: how was it possible to move the said-to-be-"locked"-coins to the wallet of the former dev?).

locked coins did not move under my tenure; or any of the code i released.
once my 0.13 release was suitably butchered; after some modifications to my forbidtx routines and transaction relaying parameters in general, the coins did indeed move.

looking at the dates and actions of individuals, not sure how you've missed that.

james

I didn't talk about you. I talked about the code in general (edit: and that coins were moved to the former devs address - "former" because it was said, that Vassilis is not active anymore for Mooncoin). Who designed it (edit: the code) is relatively unimportant for finding out, how the movement of coins could happen. But while you're at it and really feel to add to the discussion, please explain the mechanism how you tried to lock the coins and how they (edit: still) could be moved. You can use the "insert code"-feature of this forum and then comment on how you designed the relevant parts of the code and why. You could also discuss the relevant code parts in the version of Vassilis, if any of your relevant code-sections for the "locking" were added/changed. That would help us all (edit: including Vassilis and yourself). Thank you.
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 47535 funded addresses. 2,109,255 txs. 5 block explorers on: April 15, 2018, 05:52:02 PM
The opinion of the community is needed, what is better:
1) to disclosure SmartLikes technology in public - before a new dev implements it into the wallet (but there will be a quite high risk of copy-pasting of technology by other coins even before its launch by Mooncoin)
2) to wait for new dev's identity, then tell him a technology and wait for his new release at Github - with this technology inside.
What do you think?


3) Discard Smart Likes and concentrate on what is important (get a new dev and a flawless wallet with proper support for the community by the dev who can answer questions like: how was it possible to move the said-to-be-"locked"-coins to the wallet of the former dev?).

Smart Likes-"technology" has never been decided over by the community, because no one knows what it should be and knows the details. The "risk" of being copied by someone other has proven to be as low as possible, because if it were really interesting, Mooncoin would range much higher in the charts and another dev would have already taken over the idea and developed a coin with this himself.

As long as we haven't seen anything how it should be implemented, it is like talking about ghosts anyway - others here have recognized this, too. Keep in mind that storing who and when someone has "liked" something, is a serious threat for anonymity (would you like to have these info stored by an entity, that has no proven record)? And it would have to be stored somewhere, if it should work like talked about since years. Aside from the problem with storage space (if this information is stored into the blockchain) or centralization and non-transparency (if the data is stored on a server run by a central instance). Think about things that happened with data-misappropriation just some days ago by an even bigger company. Storage of personal-data in combination with a cryptocurrency goes against everything what is the origin of crypto. Maybe the reason why Mooncoin lost acceptance more and more over time is just the advertisement of Smart Likes? As long as no one knows how this is planned to work in detail, I consider it to not be voted for by anyone, because no one can judge how it works and no one can do a proper technology-assessment that would be necessary to make a proper decision.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 03:53:26 PM
Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day.  
you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen?  would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?
But Keep in mind that the dev can restore  everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...
Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..)
Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.

Yes Coinflow, about rollback we have already discussed at the hacker attack on December 2014....

And the idea was abandoned.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 03:25:54 PM
So the coins were not in the Recievership control?

    thats what i was led to believe.  (from posts in this thread)



(after the cryptsy thing i should clarify)


i thought the Receivership released them...

was they 'taken' from cryptsy?  (which is...good and bad)




There were 70 billion Moon stolen from Moon holders by Vernon, the guy who owned Cryptsy exchange.  8 billion were turned over to the receiver by Vernon's ex-wife.  Those 8 billion were auctioned off and the money went into a fund for EVERYONE that lost coins stolen by Vernon.

Now... There are some idiots in here that keep insisting that the remaining 62 billion coins be turned over to the "authorities"Huh
What authorities?  The receiver?  And, just how exactly are they authorities, that would be entitled to those 62 billion coins?


The coins that were returned, belong to the Moon community, NOT Vassilis, and not the court and/or receiver.
Just because a "few" coin holders joined the lawsuit, does mean that courts can take and sell the coins from the rest of the coin holders...
That is theft....

So idiots like Coinflow need to stop telling the community that they need Vassilis to give the coins to some "perceived" authority.





Please tell the community, why you need defamation of other (longtime) community members? As far as I remember, this was not necessary for several years in both of the Mooncoin threads.

So having said this, I assume you have a good reason for telling, that the believed-to-be Cryptsy-coins belong to "the community"?
As far as I know, they still belong to Cryptsy (represented by the receiver), as part of their "insolvency estate" (edit: to be distributed among their claimants).
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 03:15:10 PM
Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day.  
you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen?  would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?
But Keep in mind that the dev can restore  everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...
Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..)
Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 01:43:14 PM
Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day.  
you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen?  would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?
But Keep in mind that the dev can restore  everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 01:15:39 PM
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.

That's why I voted for making Mooncoin more secure over and over again. But Mooncoin Foundation and some others blocked that - for example my suggestion of making MOON a PoS/PoW-hybrid coin or implementing another - more complex algo or technology - making it a little harder to attack Mooncoin, instead of spending development-power on MoonWord, SmartLikes and other relatively uninteresting things. If these really were interesting for the cryptoworld, the price would be much, much higher already - because as an investor you know an important rule: buy the rumor, sell the fact. Now we have the mess by setting wrong priorities.

I repeat it once again: If the basics of a coin don't work, then the rest is pointless.

@agswinner: I have been absent for a longer time for good reason. Part of it was to see, whether what I thought and warned you of, will come true. And it came true. Mooncoin was attacked and again some of the Mooncoin-people now are trying to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e "burning" coins).

How is burning the coins the "wrong conclusion"?
It censors coins again, just like it was done by trying to "lock" them.

Quote
As for the government trying to overtake: I did not mean a government like that of the U.S., but the government of the some here always trying to sell some peoples opinions as the truth and the "decision of the community".

It sounds like YOU are trying to sell the community
I'm only formulating my opinion and try to explain, how there is a better way to go forward.

Quote

Maybe you have not read the excerpt in full or did not understand it completely: the most important conclusion from that excerpt is, to not censor coins, because it undermines trust in a currency.

Yes, censoring does in fact undermine the trust in a currency.... Oh wait...  Didn't the Bitcoin community vote to do just that?
Let me explain to you what censoring is.... and is not....
When a government or some hostile entity tries to manipulate and/or control an outcome.         This is censoring
When a community, collectively agrees to do something for the betterment of the community.    This is NOT censoring

What did bitcoin do exactly to censor coins?
First of all, there is a difference between censoring coins and censoring opinions. Then, what is the "betterment" of the community? The coin itself can not be held guilty for being used for fraudulent actions. Hence the punishment should only be directed to the one using it for these - AFTER a formal trial in the jurisdiction of that individual. If today the assumed coins of Vernon are blocked, then tomorrow your coins may be blocked, because you have another opinion than the majority of "the community", or because of "an error in the code".

Quote

As sad as it is, that these coins eventually will come to the market again and that previous owners don't want to buy their own coins again,

Explain to us WHY they should have to buy their own coins again?  We want an answer!
They don't have to buy them again. Others can buy them instead.
They only need to accept, that censoring coins is a dangerous precendence-case, that will make it possible again to block coins for any reason, especially if not ALL other coin-holders have been asked by an official election that is fool- and fraud-proof. Just imagine, these were your coins instead, you are the rightful owner, but cannot prove that those coins are wrongly blocked, by the decision of possibly shady devs or a "strange" community. The problem is the possible arbitrariness.

Quote

when they are correctly handed to the authorities,

How is stealing coins from the community and giving them to a court, to auction off to someone who didn't own them, the "correct" thing to do?
In your own words... Exactly what makes the court/receiver an "authority", that is entitled to take coins away from rightful holders?

That is not the question.
The question is, what jurisdiction is relevant for Vassilis and what are the rules there, to not become a criminal when acting.
So, as said, for him living in a European country, it is highly likely that he must return obviously stolen goods to the relevant authority to not make himself part of the crime. Whether they can decide better what to do with the coins is not the question.

Quote

as good it is to show the cryptoworld, that Mooncoin has corrected the mistake it made.

Wow.... The level of arrogance/ignorance AND disrespect to EVERY member of the Moon community!
YOUR statement insinuates that the Moon community is somehow responsible for Cryptsy stealing the 62 billion coins.
That's like telling a rape victim that it is "her" fault that she got raped.

Why is this arrogant? Don't you think it is more like raping and being arrogant, if "the community" forces Vassilis to burn the coins, even if he becomes a criminal by doing this? Vassilis himself has not yet reported, what his lawyers recommend.
If the coins would not have been "locked" in the first place, this problem would not have arisen.

Quote

There were others here before, who described this as a big problem. But they were ignored.
And now everyone complains about Mooncoin "not taking off" and cries for "burning the coins" to make it go to the moon. Again a wrong path, which will make it even worse.

Considering many in the community as well as MANY people outside the community say there are too many
Moon coins, you will have to share YOUR logic on how reducing the number of Moon coins will make things worse.

I have said that before in other words. It makes Mooncoin arbitrary. And this is what scares potential serious investors more away in the future, then what will be gained now by changing the code. If they can't rely on set standards, that is always bad.
What happens, if the price does not rise significantly, after the coins are burned? Should the amount then gradually be reduced to 1 MOON by taking more and more coins out of the system by first "locking" them and then "burning" them? That is the opposite of seriousness and reliability of a currency and won't build up trust at all.

Quote
Btw: there are many others, that may not even post here, but are also part of "the community".
I think everyone here is well aware that we are not the only community members.
I hinted to this, because in the past there have been some deadlines for some "decisions" set to two weeks or so (e.g. the logo). This is against all fairness for those members, because they would not even have a chance realize, that something like this is going on. For a serious discussion something this should be propagated everywhere possible and with a wide time frame, to make it possible for non-frequent readers/investors also possible to notice.

Quote
edit:

Here the link to the mentioned excerpt again: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

...and the text from there:
"Prevent any transactions spending "stolen" coins, effectively destroying those coins. If the coins clearly are stolen, then there is a risk that this action will be accepted by the Bitcoin community, but this would set a very damaging precedent. If it becomes possible for coins to be blacklisted in this way, then it is a slippery slope toward blacklisting of other "suspicious" coins."

You took that above text out of context.  You can't take a paragraph out of a story and claim it represents the whole story.
I even have linked the page, so everyone can read, in what context the excerpt is used originally. And it says exactly the same: A government should not censor (that means: block) coins. Be it the US-president (elected officially) or a coins dev (not even elected officially).

Please, everyone. I'm by no means against maximizing wealth for every (honest) owner of Mooncoin.
But there are certain basics, that really should be mandatory, to not make Mooncoin and the underlying code only a disposable quantity to be altered if "the price is not right up to taste".
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 11:27:01 AM
Good afternoon ! I believe that the best priority for Mooncoin community now must be the development. So, I will agree with daniel634.

Development needs a developer. So the first would be, that Vassilis clears the situation.

When this is done, Mooncoin should follow this roadmap:

1. Improving the security-model of Mooncoin
2. Teaching the community how markets work, so that they can invest with confidence and not need to come back every day, to ask for development and marketing and/or cry about low prices and many coins in circulation. New features will not help anyone, if investors cannot be confident, that there is a capable, reliable developer, concentrating on the main aspects of serious development first and foremost
3. Get the coin to bigger exchanges
4. Teach the community to share info about Mooncoin and to use the coin, so more and more people can discover MOON as a perfect means to store and distribute wealth, without the complexity of coins like Ethereum, IOTA or other coins assumed to be the "bleeding edge". This can and must be done by explaining, that the relatively high circulating amount of MOON is not a bug, but a feature. It will make for a stable price in the future. Remember: many new people don't like to invest into a coin, that costs thousands of Dollars for one unit. Mooncoin is the ideal investment for newbies, because MOON are still cheap. It only needs to be reasonably communicated and it must be backed by a serious, honest and responsive developer, who is there, if problems arise - supported by the active community of course

If we want to achieve all this and want to make Mooncoin a serious contender to coins like DOGE or even LTC in terms of reputation and market capitalization, then we have enough work to do.

Mooncoin should be a classic, serious, secure alternative to other, more experimental and thus high-risk coins.

Look at it like this:
The Moon means stability and reliability. So why not try to make Mooncoin kind of the "reserve" in the long run? Just as the Moon is the dependable companion for the Earth, which makes human existence possible; because without it, the Earth would not have enough stability to make any life possible.
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 23, 2018, 09:20:25 AM
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.

I didn't mention anything about fraud no as there's no evidence of that, only that those coins were supposed to be locked up with no access as that is evidenced here in this thread. The only fraud I can see evidenced is Barry lied about locking those coins.

I have no idea why he was so fixated on the fraud part, if I believe someone is doing shady things then I will usually make that clearly known. Like with MF trying to get me to sweep Barry's debt under the rug and just let him keep my coins, or him offering me a fraction of my BTC back to leave it alone after so I wouldn't hurt his investment.

However, I would find it highly suspicious if the new dev is the one in control of those locked coins now.

Maybe barrysty1e was confident, that his solution would work and he made Mooncoin_Foundation and everyone else believe the same? But as the dev he should have known, that this is no 100% secure solution.

Either both overlooked, that Mooncoin is a Proof of Work-coin and thus has the weakness of a possible 51%-attack, which is what happened here? Or they ignored it and the "locking" of the coins was just marketing to drive the price?

A possible 51%-attack (and the relatively low hashrate needed to perform it, compared to the rates of LTC, DOGE etc. and in regard to the available massive amounts of hashing-power worldwide) was the reason, why I advised several times to implement other methods of securing the coin (PoS, hybrid, Proof of Human Work, mixed algos etc.). But nothing of this happened. It was more important to get a new logo several times, SmartLikes, MoonWord, lower block-rewards (to scare the miners even more away ...) and "locking" coins ...

i see too many people confused, I'll be very short:
1) about barryst1le look into Trust summary for barrysty agswinner   2017-05-11   0.00000000      Many jobs are incomplete, moonrush wallet for example, coinomi and electrum wallet,we have paid for having them, not so much, but we have something rather than nothing. Others dev for the same job demand a lot more!! This person is not a scammer! . The work done has an evident value higher than the requested amount !  (about 300usd).
2) about 51% attack unrealistic  and imaginative, mooncoin blockchain has never suffered an attack 51%.
P. Vernon is the owner , he escaped to China with the private keys of the cold wallets of more than 50 coins (report 3 Fed Court) . On oct 2016 my alert of first coins moved 100 ml Mooncoin from account cryptsy moved to bleutrade. I think it's necessary to inform exchanges to freeze all the coins from the first two cryptsy addresses.

2F2RsYK3Ac6zGvENWTosF7xKor7g2bqzra
38,749,074,939.000 MOON   ---- >
2FgWY2MjPn9AG3bhuRLH5mhCKyc17eVHRY 38,149,074,939.000 MOON 2PcvMEThutycp94myusjFWMFyoBT4ZPjuP (50ml) 2ab6krKewHA3XqDkNr7gkvbbr5z7NihnAY (550ml)--->   2FUg5Ay1STEroh6CQk4PXpVVEx8xQ8EY2M (100000000 MOON)

Data: 10 novembre 2016 17:44:42 CET
A: robert@robertcareylaw.com, Fed Court <jds@sallahlaw.com>
Oggetto: I: Cryptsy

As is stated in the recent report, FED Court has the control of 8,421,008,915.0 MOON coins that have been gathered in this address 2M5kiseCXp6X5g75ZcWeo3BNsMYJxtDCzq  

For the mooncoin community  can you confirm that the first big addresses (2cLG2RzF6rDCtNws6We8o8avXs1grqARHU and 2FgWY2MjPn9AG3bhuRLH5mhCKyc17eVHRY) are under your control?

I am looking forward to a positive answer

Best regards


In archive of MF 16/10/2016 my discussion ....as you know, I'm the shareholder more damaged by the collapse of cryptsy and mr Robert Carey, Esq., Receivership Consultant Of Federal Court has not given me dettails, not clarify the situation concerning Moon addresses .As you know the largest address has been  recently moved with a difference of 600 millions. This particular leads me to think that Vernon controls Mooncoin address. So i can not, for now, contribute massively, until this situation will be clear. ...
The report 3 Fed Court confirmed what was my suspicion..

Look this 2FgWY2MjPn9AG3bhuRLH5mhCKyc17eVHRY �-> to Vassilis donation fund

PVernon have the private key , why a 51% attack to rewriting Two years of Blockchain?



Hi agswinner,

you know I appreciate your work and what you have done for Mooncoin (donations etc.).

But let me explain in detail, how the 51%-attack worked:
barrysty1e wrote a new wallet-code, that was intended to prevent the one being in control of the private keys of the (believed to be) former Cryptsy-addresses (Vernon) could send them away. This works, if at least 51% of the mining-network uses this code. The coins are "locked".

Mooncoin is Open Source, so everyone can take its code and alter it the way, he/she likes. This ranges from the graphical surface up to its core-elements, like the hashing-algo and the such. Thus it is absolutely NO problem for an experienced coder, to take out the passages of the wallet code, that prevents the coins from the believed former Cryptsy-address to be sent. Now he only would need to make the rest of the network play by its (edit: his) rules, i.e. accept a transaction he sent from that address. Because all of the rest of the miners, namely the honest ones, follow the rules set by barry's wallet and would not use his altered code, he must "convince" them by his sheer majority of mining-power. Now as Mooncoin has a relatively low hashrate, compared to other PoW-coins, it is relatively cheap, to rent enough hashing-power, to "convince" the (honest) network, to accept the transactions sent by the attacker's code.

If the attacker has the majority of hashing-power, he does not need to rewrite the whole blockchain, but only "over-vote" the other honest miners to let the network accept his transaction, as he can now decide, which transactions are made final and which not, namely: written into the blockchain and be confirmed. In other words: as he wants his malicious txes to become part of the blockchain, he only needs to mine as long as needed with the majority of hashing power, until his txes have been fully confirmed, so cannot be reversed by other miners without investing the same or more of hashing-power to rewrite the blockchain regarding these transactions. Normally other miners/nodes accept the longest chain as the valid one and if they have those formerly invalid txes included/confirmed, won't revert them, but simply take over at the chain-position, where the attacker left and then just mine along from there, because for them this then is the most plausible chain, hence accepting the previously blocked-by-code transactions without knowing them to be wrong.

Everybody with a bit of knowledge could know right from the start, that this is a serious attacking-scenario, hence knew that it (edit: "locking") would almost surely not work in the long run, because - as I said earlier, it would only be a matter of time until it became profitable for the attacker to perform this attack. Most probably that is, why the attack was happening in the end of the markup-phase of the recent market-cycle, so that he could at least sell the ~17 bln coins, that where not sent to Vassilis' address, with a good profit at the highest prices possible for a longer time. See here for explanation of market: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/050504.asp (I assume, you know of market cycles already, but as others are reading also, it helps to understand, how markets work, and why it happened now).

So to come back to what I said earlier: A 51%-attack is a VERY real attack-vector for any PoW-coin, even for BTC, but very unlikely, because it is THE coin with the highest hashrate, by far, so it is very unlikely an attacker would gain more profit by buying the hashrate for a 51%-attack, then by simply following the rules for mining. With comparatively low hash-rates, which - to be clear -  Mooncoin has, I was constantly voting for mitigating this attack-scenario by working on mixed algos, PoS-component etc. And we still need this to do. The danger is exactly as high as before. This is, why many of the other smaller scrypt-coins moved to better security-models long ago.

Now to close my notes: if you argue, that there was no 51%-attack, then it would be best to let barry chime in and let him explain, how it was possible to unlock the coins, despite his efforts to "freeze/block them". As long as there is no better technical explanation, the 51%-attack is the best. Just remember, that it could be understood as part of a fraudulent action, to first tell the community, that these coins are locked, when - in effect - they are not.

Maybe another technical more savvy, independent user here could look at all this (especially the code) and explain it further.
I'm open for serious discussion.
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 21, 2018, 02:33:34 PM
Guys! any updates regarding the burning of some $mooncoin?

They can't be burned, unless you would like to leave a bad sign (fraud-accusations) over Mooncoin forever. This will prevent investors from buying Mooncoin. The best way is still to hand the coins over to the authorities - to burn those accusations, instead of burning coins.


Edit:
Moreover, burning coins would make them unavailable for those who are the original owners. They would have a claim against Vassilis, which would make him reliable for recourse. So let's wait, what V's lawyers have to say.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! KGW exploit FIXED 4/3/2014 on: February 21, 2018, 11:00:29 AM
it is really a coin that can reach the moon soon

What is the current status of the pending topics like Burn, Hard fork, Swapping, Vassilis' Absence etc?

In case you did not realize, this is the new thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.0
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 20, 2018, 11:04:11 PM
i think its one of the last 2.

 I haven t done it myself.  have to leave it for someone who has.

   oh, is your wallet encrypted.  (i think it needs to NOT be, but im not sure)

 i think someone can help you, with these details, just gotta wait for that.



Yeah...I have readed this....and I this is a problem with bip38 or 58 encriptation...

I don`t know what more I can do to transfer this coins.

That's the issue; hardly any QT based wallets use BIP38 encryption for importing private keys anymore. Only WIF.

"Note that not many bitcoin wallet applications or web services are able to import BIP38 private keys. In this case, you will have to use the "Validate" feature on the generator to extract the unencrypted Wallet Import Format (WIF) key as an intermediate step before sweeping the balance."

https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com/bitcoinpaperwallet/generate-wallet.html

Click 'Skip', then click the 'Validate or Decrypt' tab. Copy and paste your private key into the blank field box, then click 'Validate/Decrypt'.


Thank you! I am travel on some hours.
 I will try  it asap on back
I have a hope now.

Keep in mind, that you have disclosed your private key to an online-service. So the most secure option would be to send the coins to a new address immediately after you have imported your key into your wallet and then don't use the former address anymore.
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 20, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.

I didn't mention anything about fraud no as there's no evidence of that, only that those coins were supposed to be locked up with no access as that is evidenced here in this thread. The only fraud I can see evidenced is Barry lied about locking those coins.

I have no idea why he was so fixated on the fraud part, if I believe someone is doing shady things then I will usually make that clearly known. Like with MF trying to get me to sweep Barry's debt under the rug and just let him keep my coins, or him offering me a fraction of my BTC back to leave it alone after so I wouldn't hurt his investment.

However, I would find it highly suspicious if the new dev is the one in control of those locked coins now.

Maybe barrysty1e was confident, that his solution would work and he made Mooncoin_Foundation and everyone else believe the same? But as the dev he should have known, that this is no 100% secure solution.

Either both overlooked, that Mooncoin is a Proof of Work-coin and thus has the weakness of a possible 51%-attack, which is what happened here? Or they ignored it and the "locking" of the coins was just marketing to drive the price?

A possible 51%-attack (and the relatively low hashrate needed to perform it, compared to the rates of LTC, DOGE etc. and in regard to the available massive amounts of hashing-power worldwide) was the reason, why I advised several times to implement other methods of securing the coin (PoS, hybrid, Proof of Human Work, mixed algos etc.). But nothing of this happened. It was more important to get a new logo several times, SmartLikes, MoonWord, lower block-rewards (to scare the miners even more away ...) and "locking" coins ...
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 20, 2018, 04:34:25 PM

CryptoDatabase is right, in that there was an attack, that "unlocked" the coins (most probably by a 51%-attack with code without the limits), so that the owner (edit: the one in control) of the coins, believed to originally derive from Cryptsy, could send them to an address of V. (edit: ~63 bln MOON, and at the same time they sent another ~17 bln to somewhere else).
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.

giantkin also is right, in that he believes that the coins are from Cryptsy, as stated by "the community". But he is wrong in only concentrating on the "fraud"-accusation. What comes after the OR in the sentence of the original posting is important here, because that attack was successful and the locked-by-wallet-code coins were transferrred to Vassilis' address.

Hopefully it is clear now.

And that is, why I again recommend handing the coins over to the authorities: to "burn" possible fraud-accusations as soon as possible in the best way available, instead of "burning coins", which would leave these kind of accusations unresolved forever.

Just good we can have a conversation about it.

   Im in favor of burning.  But i dont get how its done.

burning to me, is destroy,   however burning is actually putting it on an adress that noone has the privkey to? (or access)
   which is what i did to 1million coins, when going to paper...   so i burned those coins?



My posting was about burning the accusations, not the coins. It was meant in a metaphorical way. Burning coins technically needs sending them to an address outside of the valid Mooncoin-address-spectrum and it has to be 100% sure, that the coins aren't spendable ever again.

But as said, this is a bad idea, since this won't clear the cloud of possible fraud-accusations, which can better be counteracted by simply doing, what is done with possibly stolen goods normally: hand them over to the authorities, to let them decide what to do with it. This is the only way to end that chapter of the coins. Everything else will not destroy ("burn") speculations/suspicions and will leave a dark cloud over Mooncoin.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 20, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
no i wasnt.   i still think he was wrong.

and that wasnt rude.  I told him not to make accusations.

 (and he could defend himself really)

No you didn't, this is what you said.

If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.

if you have no idea...then dont post about it.  just makes you look clueless.

  

How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you have to lie about what you've said.

I take giantkin seriously... Why?  Because unlike YOU, he isn't talking out of his ass!

There are a couple other people in here, just like you, that LOVE to take things out of context or read something into a post that just isn't there.

Let's Look at the original post...

Quote
If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.]quote]

If you take the whole thing IN context, the guy is an idiot for making a comment about something he knows NOTHING about, even though the second half of his comment may be true.
The FACT that he says that if there is stolen money, that it could be developer fraud, shows that he has NO clue in regards to the circumstances of the stolen coins and therefore he has no right to comment.

And this is where YOU(and others like you) come in.  All you read was "a bad defense against hacker attacks" and decided giantkin was wrong for telling the the guy not to post because it makes him look clueless.

And giantkin also made an excellent point....  The guy could defend himself (if he wanted to), he doesn't need you to do it for him.

Last point... Just because you don't like what someone posts, does not give you the right to call someone a liar, especially when the facts don't support your claim.




CryptoDatabase is right, in that there was an attack, that "unlocked" the coins (most probably by a 51%-attack with code without the limits), so that the owner (edit: the one in control) of the coins, believed to originally derive from Cryptsy, could send them to an address of V. (edit: ~63 bln MOON, and at the same time they sent another ~17 bln to somewhere else).
He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.

giantkin also is right, in that he believes that the coins are from Cryptsy, as stated by "the community". But he is wrong in only concentrating on the "fraud"-accusation. What comes after the OR in the sentence of the original posting is important here, because that attack was successful and the locked-by-wallet-code coins were transferrred to Vassilis' address.

Hopefully it is clear now.

And that is, why I again recommend handing the coins over to the authorities: to "burn" possible fraud-accusations as soon as possible in the best way available, instead of "burning coins", which would leave these kind of accusations unresolved forever.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 44495 funded addresses. 2,064,149 txs. 5 block explorers on: February 20, 2018, 11:50:28 AM
no i wasnt.   i still think he was wrong.

and that wasnt rude.  I told him not to make accusations.

 (and he could defend himself really)

No you didn't, this is what you said.

If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.

if you have no idea...then dont post about it.  just makes you look clueless.

  

How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you have to lie about what you've said.

geez dude...  thats what i said...  and thats what i meant.   accusations.

    You need to stop turning my words.   why are you doing that?

  seems like you are trying to keep this project buried. why?

 whats your motive?    barry is gone.    the newer dev is scared off.   the value is super low...

how much more can you say about it?
let it lie and recover.

ive been holding my coins since the cryptsy thing.
 (which was NOT the coins fault)



Hi glantkin,

obviously you both are talking at cross-purposes.

The problem is, that barrysty1e implemented a measure in the code, that did not work --> coins were unlocked and sent to another address. That is another thing than the fact, that the coins that were moved, stem from Cryptsy originally.

Btw., regarding "fact": is there any proof, that the address from where the coins were sent, really is a Cryptsy-one? So that it could stand up in court?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 65 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!