Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 11:21:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 [327] 328 329 330 331 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [MOON] Mooncoin 🌙 Proof-of-Work, launched in 2013  (Read 317659 times)
Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 04:07:11 PM
 #6521

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

You instructed 3 addresses to be blocked but 1,500 transactions were blocked instead.

You have just stated you didn't instruct 1,500 addresses to be blocked. Peter Bushnell has stated he was given 1,500 addresses to be blocked. That leaves Chekaz. Remember, Chekaz claimed he did the work and that it was verified by Peter Bushnell.

Did Chekaz work against your instructions?
1711754466
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711754466

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711754466
Reply with quote  #2

1711754466
Report to moderator
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
agswinner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1375
Merit: 1010


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 04:12:38 PM
 #6522

My wallet 0.18.1 working well Grin
It is good to remember that "barrystyle protection" is on big cryptsy addresses; the 62b are only a part of them. To understand it is necessary to know the address of Michi and where your "blocked coins" come from.

Mooncoin Community New Fund address : MLfg3H5V81ZKBHA8qe35U2L28T2sgXkY1L
Web wallet : https://cointopay.com , Mooncoin web :  http://mooncoin.com
http://twitter.com/mooncoinitalia , https://www.facebook.com/mooncoin.italia/
Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 04:13:29 PM
 #6523

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

You instructed 3 addresses to be blocked but 1,500 transactions were blocked instead.

You have just stated you didn't instruct 1,500 transactions to be blocked. Peter Bushnell has stated he was given 1,500 addresses to be blocked. That leaves Chekaz. Remember, Chekaz claimed he did the work and that it was verified by Peter Bushnell.

Did Chekaz work against your instructions?
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 04:14:28 PM
 #6524

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 are right. But you do not know that the community already approved 62 B coin burn/lock 2 years ago.
Moreover, if there is vulnerability which could lead to the end of chain, it should be fixed immediately and not voted. Pools and exchanges are not fools, they think twice before every update.

Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 04:22:25 PM
 #6525

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

You instructed 3 addresses to be blocked but 1,500 transactions were blocked instead.

You have just stated you didn't instruct 1,500 transactions to be blocked. Peter Bushnell has stated he was given 1,500 addresses to be blocked. That leaves Chekaz. Remember, Chekaz claimed he did the work and that it was verified by Peter Bushnell.

Did Chekaz work against your instructions?

No, I think Peter meant transactions, not addresses. Transactions, related to 3 addresses. If you look at Github source which ChekaZ posted in his post above, part of code, there are 1,495 transactions.

Edit: if there were 1,500 addresses, then there would be maybe about one million transactions to block.
So now we will discuss why one million addresses was blocked?  Smiley


Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 04:38:42 PM
Last edit: March 05, 2020, 04:53:23 PM by Taranis67
 #6526

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

You instructed 3 addresses to be blocked but 1,500 transactions were blocked instead.

You have just stated you didn't instruct 1,500 transactions to be blocked. Peter Bushnell has stated he was given 1,500 addresses to be blocked. That leaves Chekaz. Remember, Chekaz claimed he did the work and that it was verified by Peter Bushnell.

Did Chekaz work against your instructions?

No, I think Peter meant transactions, not addresses. Transactions, related to 3 addresses. If you look at Github source which ChekaZ posted in his post above, part of code, there are 1,495 transactions.


He stated addresses. I think in this case "addresses" and "transactions" have been used interchangeably so we could conceivably use both as meaning the same thing but that is for Peter to confirm, not us.

1,500 transactions (let's round it up for expediency) were blocked. You say you didn't instruct that and he has stated he was instructed. He was paid for doing the work so we can only assume whoever paid him was satisfied with his work. Chekaz then claimed that work was his. Did Chekaz instruct 1,500 transactions to be blocked or did Chekaz pick those transactions to be blocked by himself?  

Whoever paid Chekaz was also satisfied with his work so we can only assume that that person knew all of the work that had been done.
I gather you paid Chekaz. Were you satisfied with 1,500 transactions being blocked, even though you don't know who owns the coins that were part of those transactions?
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 04:55:32 PM
Last edit: March 13, 2020, 06:59:09 PM by Mooncoin_Foundation
 #6527

Devs are also not fools, and no dev, especially with reputation, will do things, with open source project to risk their reputation. Instruct you them, or not. By the way, Vassilis was also instructed to burn coins when community voted for that, he did not do that due to his own reasons. In a decentralised project it is just not possible technically to be a boss.

Edit: if you read this ANN thread (pages which are related to the beginning of 2018), you will see how many community members instructed Vassilis to burn coins, some members even phoned him, he said. 'Due to his own reasons'  - it was meant that he received threats, besides he said he was advised by his lawyer to burn no coins due to possible legal issues.

It is too early to discuss these 1,500 transactions. It is necessary to do the research, to compare wallets, transactions etc.    
ChekaZ worked to implement Smart Likes, when he discovered vulnerability, it had to be fixed. I am satisfied with his work, which fixed vulnerability and implemented Smart Likes.

So, you ask again and again, but how about parity? Will you answer my questions or not?

Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 05:05:07 PM
 #6528

Devs are also not fools, and no dev, especially with reputation, will do things, with open source project to risk their reputation. Instruct you them, or not. By the way, Vassilis was also instructed to burn coins when community voted for that, he did not do that due to his own reasons. In a decentralised project it is just not possible technically to be a boss.

It is too early to discuss these 1,500 transactions. It is necessary to do the research, to compare wallets, transactions etc.   
ChekaZ worked to implement Smart Likes, when he discovered vulnerability, it had to be fixed. I am satisfied with his work, which fixed vulnerability and implemented Smart Likes.

So, you ask again and again, but how about parity? Will you answer my questions or not?

I have answered your questions. Just now I'm trying to get to the bottom of who instructed, and why, the blocking of 1,500 transactions. This has massive implications for all of the community members who have had transactions associated with those 1,500.

ALL members must now go through the list to find out if they are affected and if their coins have been blocked.

You have paid for those 1,500 transactions to be blocked so now you are answerable for it, especially given you've stated you are satisfied that it has been done. 
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 05:09:39 PM
Last edit: March 13, 2020, 06:49:48 PM by Mooncoin_Foundation
 #6529

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?

No, I said that the research should be done regarding 1,500  transactions.
I am satisfied with fix of vulnerability and with Smart Likes.

Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 05:17:41 PM
 #6530

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 05:21:59 PM
 #6531

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 05:26:38 PM
 #6532

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 05:30:32 PM
 #6533

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

Yes, the consensus is everything. But how exactly would you vote for Proof-of-Stake, for example?  At Telegram?
How to count votes? What if there are fake accounts? How to verify it?

Edit: no, I am not completely right. The consensus is everything, but some things related to Mooncoin nature should not even be discussed. Now there is a problem with low hashrate, for example, but if Mooncoin will not follow BTC classic model and will become just one of thousands of POS coins,it will have no future at all.


agswinner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1375
Merit: 1010


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 05:35:43 PM
 #6534

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

can you remember what “All of our plan “is?  and what has been done?

Mooncoin Community New Fund address : MLfg3H5V81ZKBHA8qe35U2L28T2sgXkY1L
Web wallet : https://cointopay.com , Mooncoin web :  http://mooncoin.com
http://twitter.com/mooncoinitalia , https://www.facebook.com/mooncoin.italia/
Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 06:00:41 PM
 #6535

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

can you remember what “All of our plan “is?  and what has been done?

I don't need to remember, I have it all on record.

Can you confirm that on March 19th last year I took you through all of our plans, (in a conversation that lasted 3 hours), that I advised you that we would like to set up an "overseeing committee" to "help shape direction and changes", that you and one other member from BCT were invited onto it and that you didn't accept the offer?

For the record, some of these plans were, New mobile wallet, STEM project, "possible dual POW/POS, the need for a bigger development team, SL, MW, staking on mobile wallet, burn, security, my frustration at not being able to speak to Vass to get a resolution, funding, promotion, no ICO but building future projects onto Mooncoin to benefit the community and price...including burning small amounts each transaction of any project.
Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 06:07:13 PM
 #6536

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

Yes, the consensus is everything. But how exactly would you vote for Proof-of-Stake, for example?  At Telegram?
How to count votes? What if there are fake accounts? How to verify it?

Edit: no, I am not completely right. The consensus is everything, but some things related to Mooncoin nature should not even be discussed. Now there is a problem with low hashrate, for example, but if Mooncoin will not follow BTC classic model and will become just one of thousands of POS coins,it will have no future at all.



Obviously consensus isn't everything to you as you are responsible for blocking 1,500 transactions with no consensus from anyone. 

Your view on POS is your view, everyone has a right to their view.
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 06:15:50 PM
Last edit: March 05, 2020, 06:42:43 PM by Mooncoin_Foundation
 #6537

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

Yes, the consensus is everything. But how exactly would you vote for Proof-of-Stake, for example?  At Telegram?
How to count votes? What if there are fake accounts? How to verify it?

Edit: no, I am not completely right. The consensus is everything, but some things related to Mooncoin nature should not even be discussed. Now there is a problem with low hashrate, for example, but if Mooncoin will not follow BTC classic model and will become just one of thousands of POS coins,it will have no future at all.



Obviously consensus isn't everything to you as you are responsible for blocking 1,500 transactions with no consensus from anyone.  

Your view on POS is your view, everyone has a right to their view.

No, untrue. There was and is consensus to block these coins.
Research history of this forum.
There was no consensus to unlock them, like it was done in 0.17.
What if coins would be dumped before you would find a solution to burn them (I doubt it is possible technically without a private key, several experts were asked a question about it). Who would be responsible? Devs of 0.17, or you personally?

Edit: okay, if you don't trust this forum, ask at your Telegram channel, whether people want to see these coins locked or unlocked. If they vote to unlock them, they can be unlocked in a new update, but then don't accuse us if they are dumped, also we can remove SmartLikes from the release (Michi said something against it), but then don't ask me where Smart Likes are. What was promised was done, now I am calm and you can go without Smart Likes, if consensus does not accept them.

Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Last edit: March 05, 2020, 06:59:01 PM by Taranis67
 #6538

No, you ignored my several questions. For example,
is mebagger2 part of your team or not?
Did you plan to burn 62 B coins and how exactly?


Everyone knows Mebagger is part of our team. For clarity, it's not MY team, I am part of Mebagger's team, of Michi's team, of the other members' team just as they are part of my team. We in this together, nothing is done by an individual, we use real consensus to go forward.


And yes, we do/did have plans to burn the 62B, everyone is aware of that, specifically stated to Agswinner on numerous occasions.

The how was to be sorted AFTER we finished the work on the wallet as part of long ranging plans. We did discuss the way it could be done, again Agswinner was made fully aware.

Mebagger also told me in PM that you wanted to start a company behind Mooncoin and also move Mooncoin to Proof-of-Stake model. When do you plan to do it exactly?

No plans for a company.

Agswinner was notified of ALL of our plans In March 2019.  I'm surprised he didn't tell you of them?

He was also told that any plans of such nature would be put to the community, along with detailed explanation as to why we propose such plans so they can be openly discussed then voted on.  As I said, we work on consensus, not on individual instructions.

Yes, the consensus is everything. But how exactly would you vote for Proof-of-Stake, for example?  At Telegram?
How to count votes? What if there are fake accounts? How to verify it?

Edit: no, I am not completely right. The consensus is everything, but some things related to Mooncoin nature should not even be discussed. Now there is a problem with low hashrate, for example, but if Mooncoin will not follow BTC classic model and will become just one of thousands of POS coins,it will have no future at all.



Obviously consensus isn't everything to you as you are responsible for blocking 1,500 transactions with no consensus from anyone.  

Your view on POS is your view, everyone has a right to their view.

No, untrue. There was and is consensus to block these coins.
Research history of this forum.
There was no consensus to unlock them, like it was done in 0.17.
What if coins would be dumped before you would find a solution to burn them (I doubt it is possible technically without a private key, several experts were asked a question about it). Who would be responsible? Devs of 0.17, or you personally?

The consensus was to block 62B coins moved to your developer's wallet.

There is not and never has been consensus to block coins of innocent members of this community on a whim of one person.

You don't even know who's coins you have blocked nor will those members if this community that have now had their coins taken away from them.

0.17 is a wallet build. A secure build that was necessary to proceed further. 0.17 was never intended to burn 62B coins. We had plans for that, already eluded to above and discussed in depth with Agswinner.


But let's not conflate what you have done with your wallet and possible POS, burn or anything else.
Mooncoin_Foundation (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 550

Mooncoin at Bitcointalk


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2020, 06:59:18 PM
Last edit: March 05, 2020, 07:13:54 PM by Mooncoin_Foundation
 #6539

Again untrue. If there is a proof that in 0.18 wallet there are blocked addresses of innocent members, which were not locked in 0.13.9, then, yes, ChekaZ and Peter made a mistake and I am also responsible.
However, if coins of innocent members were locked in 0.13.9, this wallet was during 2 years in your hands, it is at MooncoinCore Github. This wallet was built with  help of mebagger2, by Vassilis.
Actually, the question why innocent members funds were locked in MooncoinCore 0.13.9 wallet, if it will be proven that0.18 only took these blocked transactions from 0.13.9.
Thus, if it is proven, then 0.13.9 MooncoinCore team are responsible for that, and anyway they are responsible for the fact that during almost 2 years there was a big vulnerability in the wallet which could lead to the end of chain just in several hours.
You accuse, but don't see evident things. You call white black and black white. What for?
Can you just tell what it is all about? What are your suggestions?

Taranis67
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 117
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2020, 07:08:47 PM
 #6540

Again untrue. If there is a proof that in 0.18 wallet there are blocked addresses of innocent members, which were not locked in 0.13.9, then, yes, ChekaZ and Peter made a mistake and I am also responsible.
However, if coins of innocent members were locked in 0.13.9, this wallet was during 2 years in your hands, it is at MooncoinCore Github. This wallet was built with  help of mebagger2, by Vassilis.
Actually, the question why innocent members funds were locked in MooncoinCore 0.13.9 wallet, if it will be proven that0.18 only took these blocked transactions from 0.13.9.
Thus, devs of 0.13.9 MooncoinCore team are responsible for that, they also are responsible for the fact that during almost 2 years there was a big vulnerability in the wallet which could lead to the end of chain just in several hours.
You accuse, but don't see evident things. You call white black and black white. What for?
Can you just tell what it is all about? What are your suggestions?

Let's be clear, our team has no responsibility for 0.13.9. We did not build it, your developer did. It was released on 11th December 2017, months before I set about trying to gather a team together.

In the intervening time we had many issues to deal with, namely austerity in crypto in general, CoinExchange problem, amongst others.

Black and white is the only way to see things. An action needs explained fully. You need to explain fully your actions. You have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut, deliberately or not.
Pages: « 1 ... 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 [327] 328 329 330 331 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!