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

[Taranis67]

It is not aboit CE. The vulnerability with validation was much serious. Someone could just attack Mooncoin and mine the total supply with low difficulty in a very short period of time.
Edit: my understanding is that an attacker would even not need majority of hashrate for that.
If you don't believe, ask mebagger2, ChekaZ, or Peter.

It IS about CE. Someones WAS trying double spends, exploiting the vulnerability in the blockchain. That person was ALSO trying it with Altilly as I have already stated.

CE showed how it was being done, once an investigation was conducted. It was then, again I have already stated and had informed you and Agswinner, that we had to go back to find out where ALL the issues were. Your developer couldn't prove he did or didn't build the wallet that CE were using.

So now I have answered your questions, I have a specific one of my own.

Exactly how many wallet addresses did you instruct Chekaz and/or Peter Bushnell to 'block'?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

With this vulnerability anyone could just mine BILLIONS of MOON in several hours. Do you realize?
ChekaZ discovered the vulnerability when working on Smart Likes.
He immediately reported it, then fixed it, then we contacted mebagger2 to come to the consensus about the update, I told mebagger2 about the vulnerability, he answered he knew about it.
That is why the update was so urgent.

[Taranis67]

With this vulnerability anyone could just mine BILLIONS of MOON in several hours. Do you realize?
ChekaZ discovered the vulnerability when working on Smart Likes.
He immediately reported it, then fixed it, then we contacted mebagger2 to come to the consensus about the update, I told mebagger2 about the vulnerability, he answered he knew about it.
That is why the update was so urgent.

You knew our team was working on a wallet but decided to go to someone outside Mooncoin.

Now, my specific question, exactly how many wallet addresses did you instruct Chekaz and/or Peter Bushnell to block?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

So, mebagger2, who keeps MooncoinCore Github credentials, is not in your team?

We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

No addresses except these 3 addresses are locked in the 0.18.
The addresses 2 and 3 were blocked in 0.10.5  and in 0.13.9, too, it can be easily verified.
The 0.18 wallet just saved protection for these addresses in place, only made it better technically, taking into account that barrysty1e 's protection was hacked.

[Taranis67]

So, mebagger2, who keeps MooncoinCore Github credentials, is not in your team?

We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

No addresses except these 3 addresses are locked in the 0.18.
The addresses 2 and 3 were blocked in 0.10.5  and in 0.13.9, too, it can be easily verified.
The 0.18 wallet just saved protection for these addresses in place, only made it better technically, taking into account that barrysty1e 's protection was hacked.

You instructed 3 addresses to be locked by Chekaz and/or Peter Bushnell. Is that correct?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

I already answered. Only 3 addresses above, only with coins, which were already locked in previous wallets and should be protected against unauthorised move.

[Taranis67]

I already answered. Only 3 addresses above, only with coins, which were already locked in previous wallets and should be protected against unauthorised move.

You haven't answered. How many wallet addresses did YOU instruct to be blocked.

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

It is important not only how many, but also which one. I answered how many and which one.

[Taranis67]

If is important not only how many, but also which one. I answered how many and which one.

Just to be 100% clear, was it you that instructed 3 wallet addresses to be blocked?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

Yes, I completely confirm that I instructed ChekaZ to protect these 3 addresses and only these 3 addresses against unauthorised move of coins from these addresses (in the 0.18.1 wallet).

Edit:
For people who don't know the story. The community agreed to lock these coins in 2016-2017, the protection was present in 0.10.5 and in 0.13.9. Coin lock is not 100% solution, but it is better than nothing. Coin lock does not 'compete' with coin burn. If coin lock is in place, it does not mean that devs cannot remove it in their new release and replace it with coin burn, though it is not recommended.

[ChekaZ]

Hi Michi!

As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:

We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.

Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.

Wait, you blocked wallet addresses on the say so of one person?

Exactly how many wallets did you block, was it 3 or more than that?

Hi!

The new protection was based on the old 0.13.9 protection which can be seen here:

Here's the list in 0.13.

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160

New list in 0.18.

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

The list of blocked TXs based on the addresses given.

Any TX that has a destination to one of the three addresses given cannot be spent.

None of the outputs in the TX can be spent. 0.18.1 went with the design of their original protection in 0.13.9 which stopped TXs as a whole from being used as inputs.

23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 @Michi
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1308

Also the addresses & code got sent to Mebagger, he reviewed it before the code was published & didnt have any comments on the blocked tx'es/addresses.

Kind regard,
ChekaZ

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

Do you personally agree that these coins should be protected against move (not authorised by the community), or not?
If you wanted to  burn them, how exactly were you going to do that technically? It is impossible without a private key.

I will ask also Michi, again, what is your address? Did you try to send coins from it?
Did you use 0.17 or 0.18 to send coins? Please update to 0.18 and resync the chain if there are issues with your wallet. No one hates you and no one blocked your coins.

[michi]

M_F : You can say till you're blue in the face that "0.18 only blocked 3 addresses" but this is NOT THE CASE.   As ChekaZ JUST reiterated, *addresses* were not blocked.  INPUTS were blocked, and hundreds of them were. 

I'll say it again to be clear: You claim "3 addresses were blocked", but that is simply not true, and it's there in code:  transaction INPUTS were blocked. Including inputs that consist of coins in my personal wallet.

In a commit, as you know, of course, the commit comments do not matter. Only the code does, and the only place where the three addresses you mention appear, are in the commit comments.  What follows is a list of hundreds of 80-bit TXID prefixes.  Not addresses. Transactions. Inputs.

I am not going to list my addresses here out in public just on your command. However I can assure you that no, it is NOT one of the three you mentioned; however that does not matter because the ban list does not consist of addresses, but txids.

Perhaps your contractors cast too wide of a net, but the result is the same.  Your repetition that only three addresses were blocked has no bearing on reality, since absolutely anyone is free to look at the code and see that that is not the case.

Yes, I did try to send coins and yes, 0.18 blocked them, as I detailed, with screenshots and log excerpts, plain as day, several posts ago.

These are facts, not opinions.   0.18's banlist blocks my coin inputs, and that was discovered by me trying to send coins in the process of performing a test when we were attempting to bring the 0.17 and 0.18 wallets back into interoperation.

I don't know how I can be any more clear, and I don't know how you can refute what is in code and on the blockchain.  You're free to look at the txids, recent transactions, and inputs -- it's all out there in the open, as I posted it yesterday.  This isn't something that can be "debated".  This is what the blockchain does; it records these things, and the fact of the matter is inputs in my wallet have been blocked in 0.18, causing my coins in my wallet to become immovable.

[michi]

Do you personally agree that these coins should be protected against move (not authorised by the community), or not?

Furthermore, you must be a bit confused about how consensus and the blockchain is intended to work.  Consensus is not arrived at by a guy asking for a show of hands on a forum.  The 62B burn would/should have been agreed upon by the community or miners (MASF or UASF) accepting a fork which burns the coins, when presented to them.

You acting as "Boss of Mooncoin" and telling a hired gun to add transactions to a list without question, is not the way to go about this. 

Nevermind that the "62b" burn is now creeping in scope to "62b … and some others that M_F thinks should be burnt!" If there was a 'vote', I certainly did't' get to participate.

The fact of the matter is, even if you do feel that Mooncoin should be governed by you, a single guy, asking for a show of hands and then delivering a diktat - your guys cast your net too broad by banning hundreds of input txids, versus "three addresses" of your choosing. 

Whether this was done intentionally or mistakenly doesn't really matter, since "Because Mooncoin_Foundation told me to do it" is not how blockchain consensus is supposed to function under any circumstance. 

[Taranis67]

If is important not only how many, but also which one. I answered how many and which one.

Just to be 100% clear, was it you that instructed 3 wallet addresses to be blocked?

1,500 transactions were blocked.

You, Moonncoin Foundation, stated you instructed only 3 wallets to be blocked. Do you know instructed the rest of the TX's in other wallets? Because there ARE other wallets affected. Noone knows who's wallets they belong to, they could belong to any member of Mooncoin's community.

The only way to know is for every member to check their own wallet.

[Taranis67]

Hi Michi!

As you correctly said, it was a paid job, we got this list of addresses from Mooncoin_Foundation with the following tags:

We have 3 addresses to block :
2QovBjnVke4fgn9UXdz9osheNLxQCk3d8R (the 1st one with 62B)
2DMfpxPiMtpVDVyrxQAAmfBbZnDH4XCMfK (Dec, 2014 thefts)
2JA3Cqf9on8YuxngxdXStCFKanAGnaQU5A (Dec, 2014 thefts)

These addresses with their corresponding tx'es got included into the consensus protection by Peter.

Neither Peter nor me have any personal opinion on these blocked Funds, we just got the list.

Wait, you blocked wallet addresses on the say so of one person?

Exactly how many wallets did you block, was it 3 or more than that?

Hi!

The new protection was based on the old 0.13.9 protection which can be seen here:

Here's the list in 0.13.

https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1160

New list in 0.18.

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

The list of blocked TXs based on the addresses given.

Any TX that has a destination to one of the three addresses given cannot be spent.

None of the outputs in the TX can be spent. 0.18.1 went with the design of their original protection in 0.13.9 which stopped TXs as a whole from being used as inputs.

23f1ade1a9 is in the list on 0.13.9 @Michi
https://github.com/MooncoinCommunity/wallet/blob/0.13.9.1-segwit/src/main.cpp#L1308

Also the addresses & code got sent to Mebagger, he reviewed it before the code was published & didnt have any comments on the blocked tx'es/addresses.

Kind regard,
ChekaZ

So 3 wallets weren't blocked, 1,500 transactions were blocked.

[michi]

The list of blocked TXs based on the addresses given.

Any TX that has a destination to one of the three addresses given cannot be spent.

So, a TX can contain more than one destination...

So, if anyone else's coins were caught up in those transactions; just with the bad luck of being in them - in other words, if other outputs (UTXOs) were contained in those TXIDs,  too bad, so sad, you're collateral damage?

This doesn't sound like a good way to do things.

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

During several years no one reported that his or her address was blocked due to protection. It is very strange.
Someone can just research 0.10.5, 0.13.9 and 0.18.1 and compare locked transactions, and to answer if they belong to these 3 addresses or not, and which do not belong, if there are any.
Edit: it had to be taken into account though that in 0.10.5 and in 0.13.9 the protection covered addresses from which coins were moved to the 1st address with 62B when protection was hacked. I don't know if ChekaZ removed or not this outdated part of code.
Just it will take time to do this research. I do not have list of transactions, my understanding is that ChekaZ took it from 0.13.9.

My question to Taranis, did you plan to burn 62B coins and in which way technically?

[Taranis67]

During several years no one reported that his or her address was blocked due to protection. It is very strange.
Someone can just research 0.10.5, 0.13.9 and 0.18.1 and compare locked transactions, and to answer if they belong to these 3 addresses or not, and which do not belong, if there are any. Just it will take time to do this research. I do not have list of transactions, my understanding is that ChekaZ took it from 0.13.9.

My question to Taranis, did you plan to burn 62B coins and in which way technically?

Let's deal with one issue at a time, shall we?

Peter Bushnell has today stated that he was "explicitly given addresses to block." Did you give him those 1,500 addresses to block?

[Mooncoin_Foundation]

What are you saying about? Transactions are not addresses, 3 addresses could have about 1,500  transactions.
I did not work with Peter, I sent 3 addresses to ChekaZ.