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

[giantkin]

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)

[1714165410]

1714165410

[CryptoDatabase]

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.

[giantkin]

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?

[coinflow]

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.

[giantkin]

ah ok, thanks for clarification.

   

[coinflow]

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 ...

[giantkin]

isnt there  a way... wordage here...

   of a backcheck  or ..   a stopcheck?   (argh) someone on one of the various coins i look at...

  talked about doing it, or having it done, so that the 51% wouldnt work on the coin, even while it was pow.

(course, later it was multi algo, so maybe it still didnt work)

[nprado]

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.

[coinflow]

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.

[giantkin]

was that because he sent from a ...an encrypted wallet originally? or did that setting on the wallet generator to ...be encrypted?
 

[Gobitcoin07]

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin)

Anyone help to check ?

Br

[paulus59]

moon will be soon to the moon, buy and hold to get profits !!

[csseyah]

Guys! any updates regarding the burning of some $mooncoin?

[coinflow]

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.

[BitcoinBoy1337]

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.

I don´t support the burn or fork or anything else having that much power over a blockchain

[agswinner]

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?

[agswinner]

About new algorithms, yes many discussions, POW, pos, hybrid pos/Pow. Barrysty1e for exempla pointed to the baloon hash, but University of Stanford consultant informed us of a security bug . Vassilis in fact have deleted this coding in the last client qt wallet. Obviously we will continue to innovate and it will be necessary to implement algorithms several times also in the last few years.

[daniel634]

Hello i just wondering wether Mooncoin_Foundation has any updates or news

[habeas_corpus]

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"
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.

[habeas_corpus]

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"?

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

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.