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

[polemarhos888]

I read the conversation in this forum and Telegram. With all estimate about all teams and devs, I ask a communication and a dialogue between them because we need one solution, one chain and unison of course. In my opinion, we can do Moon one of the most useful coins only with this way.   

[1714847685]

1714847685

[1714847685]

1714847685

[1714847685]

1714847685

[agswinner]

I read the conversation in this forum and Telegram. With all estimate about all teams and devs, I ask a communication and a dialogue between them because we need one solution, one chain and unison of course. In my opinion, we can do Moon one of the most useful coins only with this way.  

We are here to discuss democratically, ChecaZ has been banned and all our info censored in Telegram Channel.

[bushstar]

Hi everybody,

I'm the developer who was commissioned to create the 0.18 client by Chekaz.

I've put my suggestions on the Telegram channel. We want a single chain after all the dust has settled, 0.17 has already broken consensus with 0.13, which is why you do not restore consensus breaking validation without doing so at a set height so everyone can upgrade in good time.

My suggestion is to update 0.17 to follow the 0.13 chain and release it after the validation restoration height in 0.18, then 0.17 and 0.18 will exist on the same chain and as long as the majority of miners are on 0.17 and 0.18 then 0.13 will follow it. The only concern is if someone tries to spend the 62B stolen coins, moving these funds on 0.18 is now blocked on a consensus level, 0.13 only protected the mempool which is why they moved and 0.17 has no protection against this at all. A new 0.17 version should also block spending of those stolen funds on a consensus level, I can send create the pull request on their 0.17 repo to add this feature.

I've also recommended to to Chekaz that historical validation be restored in the 0.18 release once validation has been restored, then 0.18 will be a fully validating release as it should be, this could not be done from the outset or consensus would break at some point as demonstrated by 0.17.

Side note, all this talk of a 51% attack is incorrect and there's a lot of other misinformation going round. This sort of thing is counterproductive, this is a purely technical issue that can be resolved by dialog.

Peter

[polemarhos888]

Hi everybody,

I'm the developer who was commissioned to create the 0.18 client by Chekaz.

I've put my suggestions on the Telegram channel. We want a single chain after all the dust has settled, 0.17 has already broken consensus with 0.13, which is why you do not restore consensus breaking validation without doing so at a set height so everyone can upgrade in good time.

My suggestion is to update 0.17 to follow the 0.13 chain and release it after the validation restoration height in 0.18, then 0.17 and 0.18 will exist on the same chain and as long as the majority of miners are on 0.17 and 0.18 then 0.13 will follow it. The only concern is if someone tries to spend the 62B stolen coins, moving these funds on 0.18 is now blocked on a consensus level, 0.13 only protected the mempool which is why they moved and 0.17 has no protection against this at all. A new 0.17 version should also block spending of those stolen funds on a consensus level, I can send create the pull request on their 0.17 repo to add this feature.

I've also recommended to to Chekaz that historical validation be restored in the 0.18 release once validation has been restored, then 0.18 will be a fully validating release as it should be, this could not be done from the outset or consensus would break at some point as demonstrated by 0.17.

Side note, all this talk of a 51% attack is incorrect and there's a lot of other misinformation going round. This sort of thing is counterproductive, this is a purely technical issue that can be resolved by dialog.

Peter

Thank you for your work and your help in this case.

[oilton16]

who buy still this mooncoin guys_
so many  project failed and that one might be also one of them

[actarus]

Hi everybody,

I'm the developer who was commissioned to create the 0.18 client by Chekaz.

I've put my suggestions on the Telegram channel. We want a single chain after all the dust has settled, 0.17 has already broken consensus with 0.13, which is why you do not restore consensus breaking validation without doing so at a set height so everyone can upgrade in good time.

My suggestion is to update 0.17 to follow the 0.13 chain and release it after the validation restoration height in 0.18, then 0.17 and 0.18 will exist on the same chain and as long as the majority of miners are on 0.17 and 0.18 then 0.13 will follow it. The only concern is if someone tries to spend the 62B stolen coins, moving these funds on 0.18 is now blocked on a consensus level, 0.13 only protected the mempool which is why they moved and 0.17 has no protection against this at all. A new 0.17 version should also block spending of those stolen funds on a consensus level, I can send create the pull request on their 0.17 repo to add this feature.

I've also recommended to to Chekaz that historical validation be restored in the 0.18 release once validation has been restored, then 0.18 will be a fully validating release as it should be, this could not be done from the outset or consensus would break at some point as demonstrated by 0.17.

Side note, all this talk of a 51% attack is incorrect and there's a lot of other misinformation going round. This sort of thing is counterproductive, this is a purely technical issue that can be resolved by dialog.

Peter

Hi Peter, thanks a lot for your precious help!

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

Hi everybody,

I'm the developer who was commissioned to create the 0.18 client by Chekaz.

I've put my suggestions on the Telegram channel. We want a single chain after all the dust has settled, 0.17 has already broken consensus with 0.13, which is why you do not restore consensus breaking validation without doing so at a set height so everyone can upgrade in good time.

My suggestion is to update 0.17 to follow the 0.13 chain and release it after the validation restoration height in 0.18, then 0.17 and 0.18 will exist on the same chain and as long as the majority of miners are on 0.17 and 0.18 then 0.13 will follow it. The only concern is if someone tries to spend the 62B stolen coins, moving these funds on 0.18 is now blocked on a consensus level, 0.13 only protected the mempool which is why they moved and 0.17 has no protection against this at all. A new 0.17 version should also block spending of those stolen funds on a consensus level, I can send create the pull request on their 0.17 repo to add this feature.

I've also recommended to to Chekaz that historical validation be restored in the 0.18 release once validation has been restored, then 0.18 will be a fully validating release as it should be, this could not be done from the outset or consensus would break at some point as demonstrated by 0.17.

Side note, all this talk of a 51% attack is incorrect and there's a lot of other misinformation going round. This sort of thing is counterproductive, this is a purely technical issue that can be resolved by dialog.

Peter

Thank you.

I repeat again and again here, that in blockchain development previous works and level of knowledge matter.
It is necessary to listen to experts, and if you don't know ChekaZ, listen at least to Peter, Feathercoin founder. If you don't know, Feathercoin is one of the first altcoins, very famous one.

About 62B, if 0.17 removed protection, they removed not only protection for 62 B which did not work, but also the protection for 12B from Dec, 2014 thefts, and this protection worked, at least a hacker never moved these coins, and in 0.17 they are free and ready to be dumped. You can just make a research and find this and other information in transparent posts in this ANN thread and in the old ANN thread, created by original dev in 2013, or ask members who know or remember Mooncoin history.

[polemarhos888]

Hi everybody,

I'm the developer who was commissioned to create the 0.18 client by Chekaz.

I've put my suggestions on the Telegram channel. We want a single chain after all the dust has settled, 0.17 has already broken consensus with 0.13, which is why you do not restore consensus breaking validation without doing so at a set height so everyone can upgrade in good time.

My suggestion is to update 0.17 to follow the 0.13 chain and release it after the validation restoration height in 0.18, then 0.17 and 0.18 will exist on the same chain and as long as the majority of miners are on 0.17 and 0.18 then 0.13 will follow it. The only concern is if someone tries to spend the 62B stolen coins, moving these funds on 0.18 is now blocked on a consensus level, 0.13 only protected the mempool which is why they moved and 0.17 has no protection against this at all. A new 0.17 version should also block spending of those stolen funds on a consensus level, I can send create the pull request on their 0.17 repo to add this feature.

I've also recommended to to Chekaz that historical validation be restored in the 0.18 release once validation has been restored, then 0.18 will be a fully validating release as it should be, this could not be done from the outset or consensus would break at some point as demonstrated by 0.17.

Side note, all this talk of a 51% attack is incorrect and there's a lot of other misinformation going round. This sort of thing is counterproductive, this is a purely technical issue that can be resolved by dialog.

Peter

Thank you.

I repeat again and again here, that in blockchain development previous works and level of knowledge matter.
It is necessary to listen to experts, and if you don't know ChekaZ, listen at least to Peter, Feathercoin founder. If you don't know, Feathercoin is one of the first altcoins, very famous one.

About 62B, if 0.17 removed protection, they removed not only protection for 62 B which did not work, but also the protection for 12B from Dec, 2014 thefts, and this protection worked, at least a hacker never moved these coins, and in 0.17 they are free and ready to be dumped. Did they forget about it, or don't know? But you can just make a research and find this and other information in transparent posts in this ANN thread and in the old ANN thread, created by original dev in 2013, or ask members who know or remember Mooncoin history.

I believe that the developers will find a final solution in this case.  

[bushstar]

I think that there's been a lot of misunderstanding all around.

If 0.13 follows the 0.18 chain after the validation restoration then I've offered to issue a patch for 0.17 to get it on the same chain as 0.13 and 0.18. Then everyone can be on the same chain again. What is not wanted to a split in the network and the community, it will only ultimately be damaging for all involved.

[agswinner]

I think that there's been a lot of misunderstanding all around.

If 0.13 follows the 0.18 chain after the validation restoration then I've offered to issue a patch for 0.17 to get it on the same chain as 0.13 and 0.18. Then everyone can be on the same chain again. What is not wanted to a split in the network and the community, it will only ultimately be damaging for all involved.

Thank you so much Peter

[actarus]

Also https://chainz.cryptoid.info/moon is on 0.18.1.
Yes, 0.18.1 was audited by Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder.

Many thanks 😊

Look at what the lead dev Michi is saying in Telegram group, it’s a little bit hard to accept:

The statement I'm going to make is this.  With 0.17.1, I know what my motivations were. Along with @Mebagger . Our intention was to fix what was wrong with the chain. Meanwhile, ChekaZ is running around trying VERY HARD to urgently get people to upgrade to 0.18, and suddenly it gets 51%.  The block on the 62b in 0.18 is "soft", it's not an irreversible transaction like we had planned.  So if consensus wants to go with ChekaZ and 0.18 — I'll just say that maybe he's done a great job of convincing people, but in the long run, the underhanded actions to try to split things off and gain 51% — these aren't the purest of intentions. Ask yourself why.

I would like to write into the Telegram channel, but seems like they dont like other opinions than their own. They banned me out of there. Their argument is that 0.18.1 did split the chain is kinda funny, as 0.13 and 0.18 are going along great. They released Version 0.17.1 and it instantly forked due to introducing new consensus rules without doing so via a set block height. There is no 51% attack ongoing, the chain just split cause of their 0.17.1 release as it declines all 0.13 and 0.18 nodes.

A big thank goes to Chekaz that put a lot of effort for our Mooncoin community and involved a great person like Peter to solve this situation, although been banned for Telegram group! We will need the help of a highly skilled professional like you CheKaz. Thanks a lot!

[actarus]

[...]

About 62B, if 0.17 removed protection, they removed not only protection for 62 B which did not work, but also the protection for 12B from Dec, 2014 thefts, and this protection worked, at least a hacker never moved these coins, and in 0.17 they are free and ready to be dumped. You can just make a research and find this and other information in transparent posts in this ANN thread and in the old ANN thread, created by original dev in 2013, or ask members who know or remember Mooncoin history.

You are right MF! Social media such as Telegram or other app allow a more direct approach and communication is easy, although from all that has happened in this circumstance it is quite clear that we cannot do without this forum, which holds the historical memory of Mooncoin, and is without doubts a much more transparent register.

[agswinner]

Small digression  

Folgory ask me if we are interested to include Mooncoin in their pos system.
https://twitter.com/folgory1/status/1220068816559968256?s=21
They are negotiating to install the terminals crypto POS in Italy at Burgerking...
Since 2014 I have always told you ‘the use creates Value’.

[Cunningstunt]

Mooncoinfoundation has the main say & is the only person to declare which wallet to use.
Although not the original dev, after saving the coin & community he will always be the head honcho to me. Still here while many others have come & gone.
If Mooncoinfoundation & agswinner haven’t authorised it then it isn’t official & no one else is worth listening to.

Special thanks go to Chekaz & bushstar.
Your expertise are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Things are looking even brighter for Mooncoin.

(Not sure why people pay attention to silly telegram groups.)

On a side note, God damn I miss trading moon at bleutrade. Anyone else?
Best trading I’ve ever done by far!
Gone are the days of summer madness.

[Mike-O]

Greetings all.   Altilly is currently running on v18 as the v17 consensus had some issues.    At this time it seems v18 is the most stable chain.

I am keeping it in maintenance for now until things settle down in order to keep anything from coming into or out of our wallets, which contain a significant amount of Moon.

- Mike

[GrGringo]

Mooncoinfoundation has the main say & is the only person to declare which wallet to use.
Although not the original dev, after saving the coin & community he will always be the head honcho to me. Still here while many others have come & gone.
If Mooncoinfoundation & agswinner haven’t authorised it then it isn’t official & no one else is worth listening to.

Special thanks go to Chekaz & bushstar.
Your expertise are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Things are looking even brighter for Mooncoin.

(Not sure why people pay attention to silly telegram groups.)

On a side note, God damn I miss trading moon at bleutrade. Anyone else?
Best trading I’ve ever done by far!
Gone are the days of summer madness.

Yessss obey your masters and ignore thousends of fellow Mooncoiners.

Please realize that there are many people who support Mooncoin in different channels. Bitcointalk, Telegram, Discord etc.
Have some respect for the work they do.

[Sporklin]

To catch some up in the shortest way possible.. I am Sporklin, from Dogecoin Core Developers something easily verified, generally known in the space. My involvement in relation to Mooncoin predates many of the other names in this entire thread, as does my association in relation to the communities and developmental levels. Moon came from Doge, we were active in the original announcement even from a developmental standpoint; seen here. Was in the Mooncoin IRC channel as it was launched even. Ties over the years got slightly deeper as Michi, the lead developer for Mooncoin is also a member of Dogecoin Core Developers under The Dogecoin Project.

We have been reached out to along with many other teams in the space for advising and assistance by the Mooncoin users. For as weirdly it seems that people want to claim that Mooncoin is just one platform for community... There are several that exist. Having one championed above others in a decentralized project is rather odd from the outside in given communities have always existed on assorted platforms. None the less many got to see as people migrated into the Telegram group, checking Reddit, the Discord community even some trying to kick around in the old Mooncoin IRC. There has been extensive conversation over the past few days with most involved in this entire mess attempting to fathom on a level how this happened.

Very curious to know who contacted the mining pools using the phrase "mandatory emergency fork" on behalf of Mooncoin? In speaking with pool operators they were not pleased to find that things had been misrepresented to them, they thought they were doing the right thing in being timely, to correct an on chain flaw during a dire situation. The only flaw found here is that no one actually verified things, slightly disturbing boarding to negligent. Expanding upon this a little, who contacted the exchanges involved in this? Their people sat in the Mooncoin communities stating that they were in contact with project developers; only to be informed by community members and developers that was not the case. It caught them a bit off guard as they have tried to answer to the communities, the users and developers with answers they seem only to have on the basis of misrepresentation.

Mooncoin Foundation which is not an actual entity was wielded as if it was something that was directive, involved, or played some other part in things apart from being a name used here. A singular person, not a community, not a development team, not a fraction of the userbase. I understand it is a name here but in speaking with things in the space there was no awareness of this name in relation to Mooncoin in any functional manner until this event; where things were used to mislead platforms, mining pools in relation to the project itself. A bit shocking on their end to find out that Mooncoin Foundation is not something more than a name used here. They were led to believe that it was a functional entity that no amount of conversation, research, checking registration spanning multiple countries could find. Why was this wielded in this manner?

Other reputations are on the line in this that go beyond Mooncoin. Peter who wrote things, is the Feathercoin lead developer. ChekaZ is the founder of TrezerCoin and CoinKit (a tipbot that handles funds for assorted projects in the space based on good faith handling) is who retained Peter. Neither of these parties had awareness that there was ongoing development, that the communities were active in coming to some form of communal consensus about how to handle many of the ongoing issues in relation to Mooncoin with the team that has been there for years. Neither thought that they were being engaged to perform an attack on one of the oldest assets in the entire space still functional in a way that violated the principles of decentralization, of consensus that both of them have sought to uphold and maintain over the years. Dogecoin has had users who are aware of this situation reaching out, asking us to make very public commentary in relation due to the involvement of ChekaZ, there are concerns now tied to intentions. Mooncoin users are asking why Feathercoin developers hate them, why they did this to them. Why were they not informed honestly about what exactly they would be doing?

That there have been "investors" running around stating that more attacks will come against the chain in this manner until the functions that singular entities want, is vile. Mooncoin has no investors, much like 99% of the other assets that exist. The reality of it is that from a legal standpoint people who buy hoping for profits, are speculators. This offers no legal protections what so ever in manner to even pretend to be investors. No promissory engagement, no share issuance, assets bought are bought from other users, across third party platforms that are not engaged with the Mooncoin Project directly in form or association to imply protections, securities or entitlements on behalf. Owning Mooncoin does not mean you own a "share", it simply means you own a Mooncoin. The threats being made on behalf of "I hold more than you, I will pay to have my way" is not how decentralization works. The threats being made in front of users who have supported Mooncoin through everything, platforms that have stepped in to express curiosity in relation to Mooncoin.. This does not give the best impression by far, fear mongering through bullying and threats only makes things seem childish. That the chain will be broken on the whim of people LARPing as "investors" makes Mooncoin a liability to platforms engaged with it as they are the ones who have to answer to their users in this all. Which of you thought this was the best way to go about things?

If this is to be what Mooncoin is to be now, perhaps pay attention to the sentiment attached to the actions taken here. I do hope that someone has the answers to these questions, they are the few outstanding ones. Nearly everyone has been upfront in relation thus far but apparently there are answers here, with the one who funded the attack that terrorized the userbase for personal gain. Other projects are now watching this having heard about the situation, in a decentralized environment this should not happen. That an entire project can be hijacked, having a massive dedicated community of users violated for money. To be told that it is in their best interest to not say anything against it with baseless promises, threats against users, developers, even other projects.

The Mooncoin communities have been wonderful to spend time among these past few days, thank you to those that reached out for help even if the circumstances were awful. To the people who have spoken honestly to discuss what happened and why, know that I understand this was not the best for you. To developers from other projects, who caught side comments and stepped in to offer assistance. This entire mess was not just a blow to Mooncoin but the manner in which it was done is a waking nightmare to many who have dedicated their time towards decentralization.

[CryptoSans]

Is there a mobile wallet for Mooncoin?

I've not been able to fine one. Being limited to desktop wallets is a drawback and more and more people operate from mobile devices only. A mobile wallet would open the project up to more users.

[agswinner]

Is there a mobile wallet for Mooncoin?

I've not been able to fine one. Being limited to desktop wallets is a drawback and more and more people operate from mobile devices only. A mobile wallet would open the project up to more users.

Newbie at the bitcoin talk forum? But She’s not an impostor, I got to know her in the telegram lion arena. You told me you were here from the first page of the old MOON forum. I assume that’s Markus' or Mr Palmer’s account instead. We know that Doge is our sister/brother, born as copy and paste of Titan’s Luckycoin, our previous dev/consultant. I want to remind  that are part of MF those who hold more than 1b here. In renewing my esteem and all my trust in MF, he will be able to clarify your comments on time. As an investor, not nice to see groups or teams fighting, censoring and mocking for a bad English. In any case we go ahead, we are human, we can also go wrong, I vote for the proposal of MICHI for a release of the v 0.18.5. (my vote = 1). About the v 0.17 experienced technicians told that it was full of bugs. Here we ask for two years security, Mword and SL, exchanges, mobile wallet. They said “soon”, but does “soon” mean two years in English? I can only say,  that the “reborn” group is a “death group” .

Your concept of moon has “no investors”, is a your personal opinion, you’re talking to a banker, financial analyst. If you do a little research you will see that banks offer btc and others as an investment. Doge also has venture capital investors. You have chosen to be a non-profit entity.

I do not think it is appropriate here to discuss whether moon is a securities, liabilities or asset, currency or commodities.

All the solutions to be adopted in a constructive way for the future of MOON are appreciated, also with the advice of other independent expert devs.

[polemarhos888]

Is there a mobile wallet for Mooncoin?

I've not been able to fine one. Being limited to desktop wallets is a drawback and more and more people operate from mobile devices only. A mobile wallet would open the project up to more users.

Newbie at the bitcoin talk forum? But She’s not an impostor, I got to know her in the telegram lion arena. You told me you were here from the first page of the old MOON forum. I assume that’s Markus' or Mr Palmer’s account instead. We know that Doge is our sister/brother, born as copy and paste of Titan’s Luckycoin, our previous dev/consultant. I want to remind  that are part of MF those who hold more than 1b here. In renewing my esteem and all my trust in MF, he will be able to clarify your comments on time. As an investor, not nice to see groups or teams fighting, censoring and mocking for a bad English. In any case we go ahead, we are human, we can also go wrong, I vote for the proposal of MICHI for a release of the v 0.18.5. (my vote = 1). About the v 0.17 experienced technicians told that it was full of bugs. Here we ask for two years security, Mword and SL, exchanges, mobile wallet. They said “soon”, but does “soon” mean two years in English? I can only say,  that the “reborn” group is a “death group” .

Your concept of moon has “no investors”, is a your personal opinion, you’re talking to a banker, financial analyst. If you do a little research you will see that banks offer btc and others as an investment. Doge also has venture capital investors. You have chosen to be a non-profit entity.

I do not think it is appropriate here to discuss whether moon is a securities, liabilities or asset, currency or commodities.

All the solutions to be adopted in a constructive way for the future of MOON are appreciated, also with the advice of other independent expert devs.

Also, +1 Vote from me about the Michi's proposal (wallet 0.18.5).