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

[actarus]

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).

+1 vote for Michi’s proposal for me as well 👍🏻

[1714028294]

1714028294

[1714028294]

1714028294

[1714028294]

1714028294

[1714028294]

1714028294

[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.

Cointopay.com since 2014 iOS/Android and web wallet

[actarus]

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.

Dear Sporklin,
before MF, the holder of the historical memory of Mooncoin Project in this forum, or someone else, can answer your question in detail, I would like to say publicly what I think. I am not an expert in finance nor a deep connoisseur of crypto world, but a scientist and I always try to use common sense in everything, especially before making judgments. I have been in the crypto world for about 2.5 years and Mooncoin was the first project on which I decided to invest, but also to actively participate in its growth according to my personal and working limits. I therefore wish to your answer brilliant speech by asking a few questions.

As you said, and it is certainly easy to prove it, you participated in the birth of Mooncoin from the beginning and you decided to invest also in this project. However, you have been absorbed primarily by the Dogecoin project, and apparently with excellent results. Now, while you and other historical investors were mainly devoted to the Dogecoin project, MF and agswinner, but also many others here, have dedicated time and personal funds to the Mooncoin project, and have naturally formed a group. What then this group is called MF or anything else does not matter.

This group has always been active and present here on the bitcoin talk forum, despite positive and also very negative periods, but always focused on the Mooncoin project. After various vicissitudes, which saw several actors alternate here on the scene, the so-called group Mooncoin Core or Mooncoin Reborn arrived - suddenly from nowhere. He snubbed this historic forum and formed a telegram group, which has a fair number of members (about 1000), involving new devs and other well known actors like you Sporklin and pretending to be acclaimed by the community as the - only? unique? - Mooncoin Core Team.

Now, I would like to overturn your point of view and ask the following question: how do you call this behavior in your sophisticated crypto-addicted jargon? Do you have a specific name for this or would you rather find it here on the forum? Don't you find similarities with your recent behavior?

Well, I'll tell you what I would call it, with a fairly common term here on the crypto scene: I would call it DECENTRALIZATION. And I would also call DECENTRALIZATION all the consequent actions, carried out by individual groups that can - or not - share marketing and technical strategies.
As said, I am not a crypto expert but I have searched this term far and wide and it seems that this definition is quite fitting, don't you think?

In this case, and it is absolutely verifiable, despite some timid attempt at collaboration, a real collaboration between two groups never went beyond a certain point, and this means that probably the feeling between them has never been optimal, even if it does not necessarily have to be always so in the future, right? So my next question: do you think there was only resistance from this historical group? But you know how many times here they have tried to establish a collaborative dialogue with you and on your part there has been a response of haughtiness and superiority, as if to say: we are the real group, you are nothing!

And we have seen the result of this recently: two distinct, non-centralized groups that follow their own path without trying to reach a true collaboration.

But your reasoning, dear Sporklin, does not follow common sense, is not objective, but is absolutely biased indeed.

So if you continue in this arrogant way, pretending to be superior, you don't go anywhere, and the result is exactly what you have seen so far: everyone goes their own way. And unfortunately, although perfectly decentralized, it's not always good for a project.

Today, just a little while ago, some users here, including me, have expressed their favorable opinion that your lead dev, Michi, as discussed in the previous days in the Telegram chat, can illustrate here her proposal for a new version 0.18.5 and we have symbolically voted, but your administrator Mark Barry immediately commented in chat "Turkeys voting for Christmas". Well, apart from the disgust, which is why I decided to leave the telegram group for a more transparent and less rude environment, I would like to tell you that this is not the right spirit to collaborate and I tell you that all the theoretical speeches you made in your previous intervention are likely to be only empty words.

My invitation is that from now on, you and the other components of the Mooncoin Core Team, calibrate also the actions, as well as the words and decide serenely if this historical group of bitcoin talk forum (turkeys?) can live up to a collaboration with you.

Ciao

Luigi

[GrGringo]

Just to remind everyone. The rules and ethics of the Mooncoin Foundation

Mooncoin Ethics

The Code of Mooncoin
(set of Mooncoin principles, rules, ethics)

1. Mooncoin is a decentralised coin.
2. Mooncoin is an open source project.
3. Mooncoin follows the model of Bitcoin, Proof-of-Work, deflationary coin.
4. Mooncoin project does not belong to anyone.
5. Mooncoin community decides how to develop the project.
6. The indicative, gathering platform to discuss Mooncoin related things, to share ideas and to find the consensus is Mooncoin Bitcointalk ANN thread.
7. Any team  or any dev can develop Mooncoin, however, only in the best interests of community.
8. The community decides which Mooncoin Github source, websites, other resources to use, which dev or team to trust.
9. The community decides which information should represent Mooncoin at well known crypto resources like Coinmarketcap, at exchanges etc.
10. Mooncoin devs or team leaders have no right to represent the Mooncoin community, to decide how to develop Mooncoin – without permission from the community.
11. Mooncoin devs are responsible for their code, however,they don’t own it.
12. Mooncoin devs and teams have no right to ignore the community, interests of investors. They have to respect the community members, to be in touch with community, to listen to opinions of supporters, tech experts, main investors, to keep Mooncoin spirit of freedom, collaboration and mutual understanding, to follow crypto ethics and philosophy of decentralisation.

MoonCoin
In the name of peace and progress.

Source http://mooncoin.vip/mooncoin-ethics

[CryptoSans]

Mooncoin Telegram still has their version stickied so they're actually pushing a fork of Mooncoin.

They are now a different chain from 0.13.

Maybe Mooncoin Telegram should rename their project and add replay protection to prevent transactions being broadcast on both chains?

[actarus]

They said that 0.18 was trying to keep access to the stolen coins, typical fake news tactic.

In the past days I read a lot of bad accuses against this community in Telegram chat: conspiracy about 62B stolen coins, 51% attack, rights of women disrespected, investors = speculators, etc.

Therefore the post of GrGringo with the Principles, Rules and Ethics of MOONCOIN is fresh air 😅 during these difficult days!

[polemarhos888]

The final result has value for me: We have 2 different chains and a community which is busy with any issue  except the spread and development of Moon. So,  we see the consequences of this (low trading volumes, very low prices, low total hashrate)...

[CryptoSans]

The final result has value for me: We have 2 different chains and a community which is busy with any issue  except the spread and development of Moon. So,  we see the consequences of this (low trading volumes, very low prices, low total hashrate)...

You're right. I've left the Telegram group and joined here, it is just angry there hung up on past issues.

A lot of what is being said does not make sense, too easy to start cooking up conspiracy theories after reading it all, it's a bad habit to get into.

Let's not be the same, we need to find a good positive way forward for Mooncoin.

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

There was a big security issue in 0.13.9 due to insufficient level of knowledge of previous devs (they were talented and experienced coders who sincerely wanted to help our community, unfortunately they were not blockchain experts).
ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.

Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now  people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.

Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

In a truly decentralised project there is no 'official' team, especially without Bitcointalk and with no consensus.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.

Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.

[actarus]

In a truly decentralised project there is no 'official' team, especially without Bitcointalk and with no consensus.
Just imagine, some new person will come to Bitcoin or Dogecoin and will say 'I and my team are official from now, and we will decide things in your best interests'.
What would you say, as an old supporter, in this case?
It could maybe convince people who are newbies and do not understand the nature of decentralised projects and all risks involved.
However, experienced people understand, if someone comes and not just supports the project, but calls himself 'official', he maybe acts in his own interests, and there are many opportunities, if you are 'official' and make centralised decisions, for example, to make a swap or to increase coin supply in their own interests (so-called development fund). Let's say, there could be no bad intentions and just misunderstanding, but anyway it is bad, if you call someone 'official', you give too much power.
What is normal for ICOs, is not good for decentralised classic crypto project where the key is that only things in best interests of all investors and not basically or solely in interests of devs must be implemented. No smart investor will invest if there is someone 'official' who decides things. Or it's too easy to lose money, if rules are suddenly changed.
Investors risk their money and are interested in the success of project.
By the way, the idea of coin burn came from old investors several years ago (there were their own coins), when no team or devs even thought in this direction.

Edit: in the future other teams can come to Mooncoin and suddenly declare themselves official. No one is official and should not be official in the future, the community decides how to develop, only good things for all investors,
also there are basic things, rules of game, crypto ethics, philosophy and spirit of the coin which should be kept forever, should not even be discussed.

Wise words! Many thanks MF. Let's go forward 💪🏻

[ChartArt]

There was a big security issue in 0.13.9 due to insufficient level of knowledge of previous devs (they were talented and experienced coders who sincerely wanted to help our community, unfortunately they were not blockchain experts).
ChekaZ was working on a new wallet and was posting in this ANN thread. He worked transparently.
When working on a new wallet with new features, he suddenly discovered big vulnerability in the old wallet.
This vulnerability could lead to the end of Mooncoin chain and to absolute losses. It could touch all investors.

Many hopes were already destroyed by 2 years of stagnation, and now  people could just lose all investments.
It had to be fixed as soon as possible, that is why the fork was so urgent. For obvious reasons we could not announce the problem before it was fixed with the fork.
However, ChekaZ immediately reported it to us and he found the solution to fix it very fast.
He contacted exchanges and pools in best interests of all investors, thanks to him. Fortunately services understood the situation and updated, though they were confused a little with Telegram.

Taking into account that the fork was successful and that 0.18.1 works great and stable, do we really need 0.18.5, at least right now? What if 0.18.5 would contain issues? There should be serious reasons for such updates, it is always risk of issues. Blockchain projects are not simple platforms where you can try your skills. Devs mistakes can cost too much and some chain issues can be irreversible.

Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment

[actarus]

Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment

Well, please I ask everybody to rectify me if what I am saying is nonsense.
I did this way: put everything on a paper wallet, then downloaded v.0.18 and consequently imported on the new wallet,  so that I am now on this chain.

[ChartArt]

Well if there is no 0.18.5 then all the investors not currently on 0.18 will not be able to move or use their coins making them worthless. It doesnt matter who is wright or wrong or who likes who, we need everybody on the same chain without them losing their investment

Well, please I ask everybody to rectify me if what I am saying is nonsense.
I did this way: put everything on a paper wallet, then downloaded v.0.18 and consequently imported on the new wallet,  so that I am now on this chain.

Thats fine if you have not received any coins after the chain split, but if you had 0.17 then received coins and try to upgrade to 0.18 your coins received after the chain split are lost

[CryptoCurious71432]

I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases.

https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin  --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin   --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks  - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0  --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet  --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() - "who released this?"

So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

ChekaZ is a tech expert and he will answer better why 0.18 is secure and other wallets are not.
Let's just wait for his comment.
Also let's trust facts, and not words only.
If you are a tech person, a dev, or just an investor like us, ask yourself, why the vulnerability with the validation in the old wallet was not fixed during almost 2 years.
Taking into account that Mooncoincore current devs started their work in the first half of 2018.
All this time there was a great risk for all investors and for exchanges. Is it a fact, or you do not agree?

Edit: ChekaZ immediately fixed the vulnerability, that is why I trust him more. He also immediately reported the issue to us when he discovered it. You could be afraid of potential leak of info and be silent before the new release, but it could not explain why you did not fix it during 2 yesrs after receiving Github credentials.
Also my understanding is thatChekaZ did not even tell pools and services about vulnerability, to avoid leak of info about vulnerability before the fork block, and services updated because ChekaZ and Peter are quite known and trusted persons in crypto,  also they worked transparently, with support of Bitcointalk community, with clear commit history of 0.18 at MooncoinCommunity Github, unlike what we can see about  0.17 at MooncoinCore Github.

Regarding coins, that were lost due to using of 0.17 Mooncoincore, though it was announced that the only version to use is 0.18, and in the future you can also lose coins if you use wallets not supported by pools, exchanges and block explorers and not announced in this ANN,
however, taking into account that the situation is quite unprecedented, and interests of investors should be protected, even if they were misinformed by someone out of Bitcointalk,
we can discuss that lost coins can be just donated to you, rather than making a new wallet update and risk. However, if for whatever real and fair reason we really need another update, we can discuss it here transparently with devs and blockchain experts.

[ChekaZ]

I saw that there was an announcement about a new .18 client release that offered some network security and new features. So I got curious and started looking into the previous mooncoin releases.

https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin  --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoindev/mooncoin   --> this version doesn't validate blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/releases/tag/0.13.9-segwit-b257fcd --> this version doesn't validate blocks  - "who released this?"
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet/tree/v0.17.1.0  --> this version validates the full block chain and purges the network of invalid blocks - "who released this?"
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet  --> this version validates blocks after 1801000 and removes the standard consensus rules that are inplace to protect the chain and transactions (validation.h: static const int64_t DEFAULT_MAX_TIP_AGE = 90 * 24 * 60 * 60;) (net_processing.cpp: return g_last_tip_update < GetTime() - consensusParams.nPowTargetSpacing * 20 && mapBlocksInFlight.empty() - "who released this?"

So it makes me curious, why do miners and exchanges prefer insecure wallets? It seems that the only secure wallet ever offered to the mooncoin community is being rejected by miners and exchanges. As this coin's community seems to prefer to not secure transactions through consensus consensus rules, how are chain transactions secured? Before purchasing mooncoin do we make a donation to the mooncoin_foundation? How much is the going rate for 'protection' and how many transactions are covered?

0.18.1 was a paid job by Mooncoin_Foundation to fix the Blockchain of its previous "doesn't validate blocks issue" & develop "LIKES" as a feature - It got designed to be compatible with 0.13.9 and fix these issues on a set Blockheight 1801000 which ensures that nobody is left behind or on a fork upon the release. 0.18.1 does validate the new Blocks but lacks of historical validation as this would have lead to a fork. - 0.17 did this and forked away alone as it wasnt compatible with the previous version 0.13.9.

Historical validation should be added to 0.18.1 but wasnt directly necessary or doable without breaking the consensus instantly. Validation has been restored on the 0.18.1 Client and a fully validating 0.18.1 version can be released.

As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).

https://m.imgur.com/a/GOjRv43

It was done on March , 1, what for? If to put 0.13.9 on the same chain with 0.17, but due to this action 10K blocks of blockchain for those who use only 0.13.9 wallet now are lost.

Block explorers are on 0.18 and if you updated to 0.18, you are okay, but after the action above, it is not safe to stay on 0.13.9 any longer.

Why all these issues, artificially created?
 0.18.1 was released before 0.17, it fixed security issues, added Smart Likes feature, which community was waiting and asking for so long time, solved other issues, requested by the community,  moved to the most modern 0.18 codebase. It was announced in advance, was discussed before the release.

Why they released 0.17 after that, with no discussing, without Smart Likes, without protection? What for they made a split of chain and then 1,000 Ghs and 10K blocks lost for 0.13.9?

Do really anyone, investors or users, from anywhere want a wallet without Smart Likes, with outdated 0.17 LTC codebase, with unlocked 62+12 B, and now with lost blocks?

[actarus]

As how it looks of now, the developers of 0.17 mined alone on the " mebagger.webhop.net" pool, rented hashrate and tried to over-mine the pools/miners on 0.18 - They've rented up to 1TH/s to be the chain with the most chainwork and did a chain-reorg ( invalidated the last 10k~ blocks ).

https://m.imgur.com/a/GOjRv43

It was done on March , 1, what for? If to put 0.13.9 on the same chain with 0.17, but due to this action 10K blocks of blockchain for those who use only 0.13.9 wallet now are lost.

Block explorers are on 0.18 and if you updated to 0.18, you are okay, but after the action above, it is not safe to stay on 0.13.9 any longer.

Why all these issues, artificially created?
 0.18.1 was released before 0.17, it fixed security issues, added Smart Likes feature, which community was waiting and asking for so long time, solved other issues, requested by the community,  moved to the most modern 0.18 codebase. It was announced in advance, was discussed before the release.

Why they released 0.17 after that, with no discussing, without Smart Likes, without protection? What for they made a split of chain and then 1,000 Ghs and 10K blocks lost for 0.13.9?

Do really anyone, investors or users, from anywhere want a wallet without Smart Likes, with outdated 0.17 LTC codebase, with unlocked 62+12 B, and now with lost blocks?

I'm not used to seeing evil everywhere, but after reading about fake conspiracy theories, I think the thread that unites the actions of different actors, although some of them may be unaware, is the control of the blockchain and the 62+12 B...

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

Everything is simple.
You want to deliver your own wallets, ideas, everyone is welcome! Not me who invites, it's nature of this project. Or again there will be several years of inactivity after these stormy days, which are full of attention to Mooncoin? No, stagnation is the worst thing for crypto, for Proof-of-Work coins especially.

'Fear is the path to dark side, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering'. Not me who said it.



Edit: don't use 0.18.1.L. Here is why:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1733963.msg54050237#msg54050237