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.

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.

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 ...

Just because some here in the thread and/or in closed communication would like to lower the payout, does not make it a community-backed decision. As allsnioc posted, this would need a real vote. So it is perfectly ok, saying it was altered by "some". Other "somes" may not even have been asked or don't follow the channels - at least not regularly. So it may be backed by a part of "the community", but it is certainly no democratic decision.

Anyway, the dev who coded this (barrysty1e) is gone now and in the light of this, those kind of changes in the code could be perceived by knowledgable investors as short-sighted hectic and desperate tries to drive the price up. This is not desirable for a serious, classic coin. If it was, then LTC or BTC would need to change their code immediately regarding the payouts, because this would drive the price for them, too.

deaconboogie set the coin up as Mooncoin, so he does not necessarily be a mathematics guru. But he chose the payout-scheme nicely in coherence to the name and the theme of this coin. So why would one alter that, if it means absolutely NO difference, whether 29531 MOON or 16000-something or even 10000 are paid out to the miners? With the amount of MOON already in circulation, this change really makes absolutely no difference. Regarding the Mooncoin lunar landing: Because it is Mooncoin, it makes sense. At least it is better marketing, than trying to "lock" coins by code, which is non-effective by design and furthermore creates censorship - see here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power - excerpt:

"Probably the most likely scenario where this attack would be employed would be for a government to try to get control over Bitcoin by acquiring a majority of hashing power (either directly or by enforcing rules on private miners within its borders). Then this government could use the transaction-censorship power listed above to do things like:

    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.
    Prevent all transactions from unknown people, so everyone has to register with the government in order to transact."

So trying to force Vassilis to "burn" the coins, he has received on his address, is exactly the same kind of the above methods. It will attract short-sighted investors (or better: speculators), that want the quick buck and they will keep coming back complaining, if the hot air of that measure - if any - is out of the coin again.

Mooncoin needs a stable and serious development, ironing-out of bugs and strong and friendly support of normal investors by a competent dev, as well as strong efforts to get it listed on further, bigger exchanges. Not a new soldier-of-fortune-feature or short-sighted-speculator-candy every day or week. That's all what it takes. If Mooncoin has achieved this, one could think about new features, if necessary. But first of all, serious investors need stability, honesty and a proven record of development. Everyone can write a white paper or a "roadmap", but developing a stable coin that becomes a "classic" or a "no-brainer" to invest in, needs much more than changing the block-reward or burning coins. Why not burn every coin except of 43, to become the brother of 42-coin? Why not do a swap and set the deadline to next week, so that the result is, that all earlier holders of MOON are out of the game? They would recognize months later, when they look again at their wallet, that their coins are useless then.

I hope you see, that all this is not the solution, but creates new problems that do not really help Mooncoin, but only makes a nice flash-in-the pan for pump-and-dumpers.

The next price rise will come. That's the character of (stock) markets. Patience is the key.

Warren Buffett:
"The stock market is a wonderfully efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the impatient to the patient."

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/877076


Edit:
Maybe also interesting to read in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_cycles

From there:
"Well known cycles include:

    The lunar cycle
    Annual seasonality, also known as Sell in May or the Halloween indicator. As well as the January effect and July effect.
    The four-year United States presidential election cycle in the US.
    The 17.6 Year Stock Market Cycle
    The 60 year Kondratiev cycles"

See the line in bold. That's why it is sad, that the block-reward for Mooncoin-miners has been altered by some here from the lunar cycle-based 29531 MOON ( see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase ) to some other (decreasing) payout scheme.

From the original Mooncoin-ann-thread:

"Block rewards:

Blocks 1-100,000: 0-2,000,000 MOON
Blocks 100,001-200,000: 0-1,000,000 MOON
Blocks 200,001-250,000: 0-600,000 MOON
Blocks 250,001-300,000: 0-350,000 MOON
Blocks 300,001-350,000: 0-175,000 MOON
Blocks 350,001-375,000: 0-100,000 MOON
Blocks 375,001-384,400: 0-50,000 MOON

All future blocks are a fixed 29531 MOON."

There was no real need to alter that.

NOTE: I also changed one line in the burn-btc.py script if you are trying to replicate my results line number 68 in the script:

template = "2CryptsyBurnLockedForeverxxxxxxxxx"

I received today letter from support:
"The issue with MoonCoin has now been resolved and I have reprocessed your withdrawals.
Please allow some time for the funds to be received.

Thank you for your patience while this was resolved.

Sincerely,

CoinExchange.io Support Team"

Congratulations! Thanks everybody! And have a good profit! )))

Nope those Fricking SCAMMERS at Coinexchange have them!
All they do ignore, misinform,block Your gateway of communication!

Completely right, so why should agswinner have any say on this matter?
And why "who is in charge" in this ANN doesn't know the condition above?

Aren't there lawyers involved that should know these condiions? Isn't Vassilis talking to a lawyer? Are we sure it is a lawyer he is talking to?

What can any of you guys that are in contact with Vassilis tell us as facts that can be proven?

Well... looks like there is something else not transparent here.

Agswinner claimed that he is in control of Mooncoin_Foundation...
So please tell me was he lying or are you lying?
Being you and agswinner asking for people to publish here their claims can you tell us who you are and what position you have to ask for documents that should be sent to federal court instead?

And based on what are you judging who is in a very bad financial situation and so should receive the coins?

P.s. I say whatever I want when I see bullshit like this going on.

You are not the federal court, you cannot decide what is right and which claim is legit, you don't put your name here, you don't put your lawyer's name here.
Don't try to make everything look like it is fine... it is not.

This is ludicrous. Why isn't Vassilis posting this himself? He is the main developer, he is the current owner of those coins. He should post these updates. I thought you wanted decentralization Mooncoin_Foundation? How can something be decentralized if in fact the ANN is pulling all the strings.

Also, he does not need an 'official document'. In fact, there are barely any laws relating to cryptocurrency; let alone laws regarding the burning of coins. There is no such thing. Nowhere in the world, so neither in V's Greece. He can just burn them whenever he wants, there are no possible official documents.

Also, who is to say that claims are indeed legitimate and not fraudulent?

Could you post a link to confirm that?