[MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 Proof-of-Work, launched in 2013

[Taranis67]

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

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

What is more important, you knew about the vulnerability for months. You did not fix it.
With this vulnerability someone can suddenly come and mine the total supply of MOON with low difficulty,
do you realize? Anyone, if you would be informed about the vulnerability,
what would you do? Obviously, fix and update immediately.
However, if you actually don't care about the project itself, you are okay with it. Let someone come and mine all billions. We just will accuse others for that and will make a swap to a new chain? No, this approach is unprecedented. If it would be just a mistake, or a normal delay, I would never speak about it.
It is the approach, the projects risks very much. That is the point.

In my post above and before I have stated there were a number of vulnerabilities. WE fixed the CE issue. WE found out what had happened by our own volition and WE added that to the list of work that had to be done to fix ALL issues. All the while you offered no support whatsoever. Noone in ANN offered any support whatsoever.  


You comment about "also" shows where the problem lies. Namely that you want your own domain and anyone else will be seen as a competitor. Why did you not at any stage offer funds to widen the team and help the blockchain reach the goal of security? Why did younset about building your own Github?
You knew we needed both funds and to widen the team as I had specifically told you in a number of Private Messages here in ANN.
I have been in constant contact with Agswinner over the last two years. I thought we had a working relationship that would help Mooncoin. Instead we saw the rushed release of 0.18 and the resultant mess that we have now.

The risk was always there and someone was exploiting it. We did everything to secure Mooncoin in the face of an obstinate stakeholder group.  

What we have now are three chains. One chain has blocked 1,500 transactions, which affect many members wallets and we don't know who they are. They could be any member of this community. It is your responsibility to fix that and supply a timescale for it happening.

Incidentally, and this has been conveyed more than once by Michi and Mebagger, we found this out during the process of looking into how we could join 0.18 with 0.17 for the long term benefit of Mooncoin. We have never seen disparate groups, we have done everything possible to bring everyone together.  

[1713920117]

1713920117

[1713920117]

1713920117

[1713920117]

1713920117

[1713920117]

1713920117

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

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

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

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

[actarus]

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

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

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

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

[mebagger2]

Did you not know there was a .17 release is that what you are saying?

Could you show a post with an announcement of 0.17 at Bitcointalk?
Link to Github?

It is open source and the Github has been available. You know how many requests we received to collaborate on the github project... zero. So why people are getting worked up about delays is a puzzle for sure. If anyone including the user mooncoin_foundation wanted to contribute something they certainly could have. Please show me your history of coding and testing over the last two years and those merge attempts that were denied by well anyone.

If you say that the project is open source regarding MooncoinCore  Github,
are you fine with working at MooncoinCommunity Github? It is also open source.

I have been very responsive. I almost always respond to polarm the same day or the same hour. I have been very responsive to the user mooncoin_foindation and agswinner. The only time there were delays or non-responsiveness is when I was sent inflammatory messages. If I were to PM you an inflammatory message and then watched the clock to grade you on responsiveness and didn't get a response... Is the problem with my message or your responsiveness?

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

We were handed a product that didn't work properly, which was based on an older product which also didn't work properly, which was based on an initial build that wasn't done properly. There are many things that could happen but didn't. I don't know what you are talking about as far as a new chain. Do you know that syncing the blockchain takes time like days of time? And syncing the blockchain takes with debugging takes longer? And then interpreting Gigabytes of logs takes time? And this is done in spare time, so it takes time to complete a proper fix. So as the problem was there from the start and for years and years no one 'mine the total supply of MOON with low difficulty', why would that suddenly change? What did we do? We fixed the issue fully without announcing it until the fixed version was on a mining pool. What did you do? Announce the security issue and not fix it in a competing version and pushed it on mining pools and exchanges. I don't know why you did this reckless action but I did request that you build your new features on our base.

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

I know .18 is insecure. There is a secure release available .17. The .18 client created a sidechain that is being mined due to blocking transactions instead of burning coins from a specific wallet. I fully agree, don't mine that insecure sidechain join the .17 miners and we can work on releasing a .18.5 that works properly. An insecure chain has zero value and currently, people mining .18 are mining an insecure chain.

You believe it is unsecure? Come and fix it. Why make another chain after launch of 0.18? If everything is open source?
It is the approach, the project risks very much. That is the point.

[Taranis67]

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

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

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

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

Thank you? Seriously? Thank you for what?

You are thanking the person that is responsible for the blocking of 1,500 transactions but doesn't know who's coins are blocked. None knows how many coins are blocked nor how many wallets are blocked, 

It took a senior developer to find out that her coins were blocked.

Do YOU know if YOUR coins are blocked?

You talk of transparency. How transparent is Mooncoin Foundation?

You then edit to say you expect the same from our team.  It was OUR team that found out that coins other than the 62+12 were blocked. Is your type of transparency one that keeps these things hidden?

We found that out because WE were looking into how both wallets could be combined. Through all this crap WE are still working on a suitable solution.

And WE ARE TRANSPARENT.

[actarus]

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

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

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

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

Thank you? Seriously? Thank you for what?

You are thanking the person that is responsible for the blocking of 1,500 transactions but doesn't know who's coins are blocked. None knows how many coins are blocked nor how many wallets are blocked, 

It took a senior developer to find out that her coins were blocked.

Do YOU know if YOUR coins are blocked?

You talk of transparency. How transparent is Mooncoin Foundation?

You then edit to say you expect the same from our team.  It was OUR team that found out that coins other than the 62+12 were blocked. Is your type of transparency one that keeps these things hidden?

We found that out because WE were looking into how both wallets could be combined. Through all this crap WE are still working on a suitable solution.

And WE ARE TRANSPARENT.

I AM VERY SERIOUS AND I DON’T TRUST YOU!

SO, IF YOU ARE A FAIR PERSON WITHOUT ANY HIDDEN INTEREST, PUT IT DOWN AND FOLLOW THE SAME SUGGESTION MF GAVE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A LIAR!

[Taranis67]

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

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

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

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

Thank you? Seriously? Thank you for what?

You are thanking the person that is responsible for the blocking of 1,500 transactions but doesn't know who's coins are blocked. None knows how many coins are blocked nor how many wallets are blocked, 

It took a senior developer to find out that her coins were blocked.

Do YOU know if YOUR coins are blocked?

You talk of transparency. How transparent is Mooncoin Foundation?

You then edit to say you expect the same from our team.  It was OUR team that found out that coins other than the 62+12 were blocked. Is your type of transparency one that keeps these things hidden?

We found that out because WE were looking into how both wallets could be combined. Through all this crap WE are still working on a suitable solution.

And WE ARE TRANSPARENT.

I AM VERY SERIOUS AND I DON’T TRUST YOU!

SO, IF YOU ARE A FAIR PERSON WITHOUT ANY HIDDEN INTEREST, PUT IT DOWN AND FOLLOW THE SAME SUGGESTION MF GAVE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A LIAR!

You're going too far here and my advice to you is to check your language.

[agswinner]

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

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

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

In my previous comment I had suggested that, only a new and independent dev should resolve this situation.

[Taranis67]

Mooncoiners need lucidity in the community, for more than 2 years the telegram group mooncoineco only serves for gossip and lies. I don't need to list too many facts, I will mention just 3 facts that already show how wrong the telegram group's attitude is against the pioneers of the ANN currency.


#The absolute majority of the 62B was owned by Mooncoin ANN veterans, all of whom are in favor of burning these coins.

#Vasillis was able to give security to the community by being able to lock the coin in an address, keeping them away from people with bad intentions. Even so, he was slandered to the point of leaving the community.

#ANN pioneers managed to correct several flaws thanks to Chekaz's new 0.18 wallet (the 0.17 wallet took so long to be ready and there was no correction of critical flaws, this posture is very doubtful)


Anyone who still has doubts, just start comparing the facts presented in the ANN Mooncoin with the information without facts presented in the mooncoineco telegram.
What makes a person spend years trying to manipulate and 'own' a decentralized currency through lies and gossip? Since you disagree so much with ANN pioneers, it would be wiser to use your time to create a new currency and develop projects based on it. For years there are thousands of cryptocoins, I have already invested in several that I ended up selling for not agreeing with the community or for seeing that the currency has no future. You have already spent more than 2 years trying to transform ANN members into Mexican soap opera characters, how much more time are you willing to waste?

It is evident that most Mooncoiners credit ANN pioneers, and not a telegram group who spends his life conspiring. Want proof? At the time of this posting 54.5% of Mooncoin users are using the 0.18 wallet as recommended by pioneering ANNs, 31.8% have not yet upgraded and still use the old 0.13 wallet and only 13.6% were innocent and uninformed to point of installing version 0.17.

This response is so pitiful it doesn't warrant an answer.

All it does is to serve my point that a very small group see themselves as gatekeepers in Mooncoin and anyone else attempting progress is seen as a competitor.

You confirmed my point.

My argument is that you are dishonest, thanks for confirming, there really are no arguments and facts to prove your words. Have you thought about writing Mexican novels? I think Televisa would pay you very well, few authors manage to invent a plot with as much intrigue and gossip as you have been doing over 2 years. I'm sorry Mark, but you're not going to get your hands on the 62B and you're not going to manipulate Moonchain according to your will, get yourself another life goal.

Again, the response doesn't warrant a reply.

But as you've persisted I will let the community know of my involvement with you.

Do you remember me initiating contact with you on Twitter in 2018?

[actarus]

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

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

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

A Big Thank You MF for your transparency and your help so far! This is a very precious suggestion!

Edit: I will expect the same suggestion from Mark Barry and Mooncoire Core Team!

Thank you? Seriously? Thank you for what?

You are thanking the person that is responsible for the blocking of 1,500 transactions but doesn't know who's coins are blocked. None knows how many coins are blocked nor how many wallets are blocked,  

It took a senior developer to find out that her coins were blocked.

Do YOU know if YOUR coins are blocked?

You talk of transparency. How transparent is Mooncoin Foundation?

You then edit to say you expect the same from our team.  It was OUR team that found out that coins other than the 62+12 were blocked. Is your type of transparency one that keeps these things hidden?

We found that out because WE were looking into how both wallets could be combined. Through all this crap WE are still working on a suitable solution.

And WE ARE TRANSPARENT.

A few small talk from now on, only serious proposals for a future development of Mooncoin.

I ask you again. Do you and your team accept MF's proposal to give up, reset everything and start over with an independent third party or not? It is a simple answer, YES or NO. Proposals will follow.

[ChekaZ]

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#L1160

Protection in 0.18.1

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573


Now 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

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

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

[agswinner]

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

I agree.  Finding an independent dev “illique et immediate” will be difficult, I hope in a collaboration of all Mooncoin devs to do it.

[barrysty1e]

Has anyone checked up on the court case, where the blocked funds originated from?

[barrysty1e]

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#L1160

Protection in 0.18.1

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573


Now 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

[ChekaZ]

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#L1160

Protection in 0.18.1

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L573


Now 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.

[barrysty1e]

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.

Only certain inputs are blocked.
Phrased like that - it sounds like youre saying all uxto's are blocked, which would mean the chain cant move.

Having said that, the 65 million/billion (if memory serves?) is not a legitimate claimable amount - it is common knowledge that this amount came from Cryptsy, and was most likely moved by Big Vern himself.
There was a class action suit against Cryptsy where people were able to state what they lost, prove it and receive compensation.
This time has passed, well and truly (was during 2018).

[barrysty1e]

just noticed something as well at https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/validation.cpp#L3557-L3571 and https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.18/src/chainparams.cpp#L70-L73.

Code:

        consensus.nPoWForkOne = 26850;
        consensus.nPoWForkTwo = 1100000;
        consensus.nPoWForkThree = 1250000;
        consensus.nRestoreValidation = 1801000;

Code:

    if (nHeight >= consensusParams.nRestoreValidation) {
        // Check proof of work
        if(nHeight >= consensusParams.nPoWForkOne && nHeight < consensusParams.nPoWForkTwo){
            unsigned int nBitsNext = GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, &block, consensusParams);
            double n1 = ConvertBitsToDouble(block.nBits);
            double n2 = ConvertBitsToDouble(nBitsNext);
            if (std::abs(n1-n2) > n1*0.5){
                return state.DoS(100, error("%s : incorrect proof of work (DGW pre-fork) - %f %f %f at %d", __func__, abs(n1-n2), n1, n2, nHeight),
                                                    REJECT_INVALID, "bad-diffbits");
            }
        } else if (block.nBits != GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, &block, consensusParams)){
            return state.DoS(100, error("%s : incorrect proof of work at %d", __func__, nHeight),
                                                REJECT_INVALID, "bad-diffbits");
        }
    }

if we do a bit of substitution here (for the non-coders amongst us), this reads as follows:

Code:

    if height is equal to or greater than 1801000 then

       if height is equal to or greater than 26850 AND height is less than 1100000 then

meaning nbits for every block before 1801000 is not being tested.
just for fun, i've put together a client based on bitcoin 0.19.1, considering quickly rebasing it over what is available for bitcoin 0.20; community is free to decide whether they support it or not.

edit derp - just checked past couple pages..

james

[barrysty1e]

Hi all,

As promised;

   * Mooncoin using classic consensus rules rebased over Bitcoin 0.19.1
   * Full validation of block target from block zero to chain tip
   * Rewritten equivalency 'forbiddentx' code
   * All tests corrected and compiled

   https://github.com/barrystyle/mooncoin

Will keep it up to date as time allows,

james

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

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

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

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


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

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

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