Edit:
SmartLikes could move Mooncoin to top coins over long term, would raise network hashrate significantly.
However, Michi said against it, Mebagger did not implement it (a detailed description of SL algo was sent to him in my PM on Jun, 11, 2018).
You don't understand it. For you it is just a 'feature'.
I was thinking on it during several years, beginning from the idea of ML ('Moonlite'). That was a dream that it could replace monetary interests with non-monetary,'likes'-based, Mooncoin for Mooncoin, even if there are no active markets at exchanges. Look at Mooncoin markets, now after 2 years of stagnation it's good if there is $100 volume per day. Which 'pump signal', or 'monetary interests' like you accused? To earn $1,000?
And it is a new tech, and of course theoretically there can be some issues with that, it's normal for something new. With a normal approach, that all could be developed and fixed.
It was implemented into the 0.18.1code by Peter Bushnell.
Not everyone can see its potential and how to use it in a proper way.
The community was waiting for the technology since 2017, there were numerous requests.
As for 12 billion from Dec, 2014 thefts, the consensus to lock these coins was much earlier than the consensus to lock 62b, in 2016. The thefts were significant, exchanges were informed about them, a dev of Mooncoin in 2014 (peme) reported he had lost all his coins and left development after that, other known and trusted persons lost their coins, thefts affected their lives seriously. That would be extremely unfair to let a hacker to sell these coins and benefit at expense of victims. It was not just a 'whim' when people decided to block these coins when there was a chance in 2016. That indicated to hackers that the community would fight with them. There never was a consensus to unlock these coins, but they are unlocked in mebagger2's 0.17 release.
About Michi's locked transaction:
It was locked in 0.13.9 (which was based on barrysty1e's 0.13.3) and was released in 2017, before Michi came as a dev. Someone sent 1 Mooncoin to many addresses in this transaction. One of recepients was an address which was not legitimate. My understanding is that Mooncoin dev included this transaction (by mistake) when looking for
how to lock addresses with stolen funds, and some legitimate addresses could be affected.
No one instructed any dev to lock transactions, it'a tech question, a dev who codes finds a way how to freeze given addresses (reported by victims) technically. While the protection was in place, I asked available devs (including Mebagger) to review the code and no one reported that there was anything wrong with locked addresses.
However, the 0.13.9 code is open source and transparent, it is in MooncoinCore Github where mebagger2 released 0.17.
If MooncoinCore devs claim they are official and worked during 2 years, is it possible that they just did not read the 0.13.9 code and did not see which transactions/addresses were locked? If they did, then they knew about locked transactions, but then why accuse me that they were locked suddenly in a new 0.18 as a 'vindicative action' or as a 'whim'? It's all not about 'competition', it's about the truth. To discredit someone with false accusations is extremely unfair, and if it is just misunderstanding, why not correct your statements at least when the truth became evident? Accusations remain in the forum's history and people will read them and think they are true if they don't have enough time for reading the whole story and making a research.
@mebagger2:
Didn't want to answer it, you posted it emotionally and I hoped you would just delete it,
that didn't happen,
not to leave false statements in the forum's history being not answered:
This is an outright lie. Nuff said.
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.
Here is a print screen, provided by ChekaZ:
https://i.imgur.com/Dt9pCNF_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=mediumFirstly, I thought our team was inclusive of all of us, Taranis67, agswinner, and the user mooncoin_foundation (By assuming Taranis67 communication was received through agswinner as neither Taranis67 nor user mooncoin_foundation would speak directly to the other. As the user mooncoin_foundation has a history of sending inflammatory private and or public messages to others (including me) and Taranis67 had his limit of them).
It's not true. In your PM sent to me on January 29, 2020 when I contacted you to collaborate with fix of vulnerability you asked me a question why I'm not in Marks (Taranis) team.
I still don't understand why you don't just join Marks team.
I never was part of any team. There is Bitcointalk community, there is no Bitcointalk team. Competing teams is a myth.
If you or Taranis quote even one my message, which is so inappropriate that could be mentioned as a real reason for not answering and not communicating, I will send all my mooncoins to your dev fund or to a burn address.
I thought we were moving forward not playing the blame game. I'm not blaming you for the 3 years in which you the user mooncoin_foundation were paying to have wallets released with these vulnerabilities (these issues are not specific to .13). The user mooncoin_foundation had six years to fix these issues and when our team was ready to fix these issues. The user mooncoin_foundation took action to delay our release so that he could release a wallet with the appearance of security while not actually having any.
It's not me who started the blame game.
You posted that I delayed your release, to compete or to release an insecure wallet?
By the way, I din't code and didn't release anything and didn't have an access to any Mooncoin Github.
Why would we just need you on board at all, if we wanted to do that?
You really delayed the release first with asking for SL stress tests, then with irrational disagreement with the safe solution from blockchain expert Peter Bushnell, then just with not answering. Taking into account that so serious vulnerability had to be fixed immediately.
I said to you:
After this update you will continue, and I will be calm and will not focus on wallet updates.
We can discuss all points to reach consensus. You are not only part of Taranis new team, but also part of this community since 2014.
You did not answer my message from Feb, 6:
Does Taranis know about the vulnerability? Would there be any discord from his side, or he understands the situation?
the fork block was moved to Feb, 22 from Feb, 17, ChekaZ recompiled Mac, Windows, Linux binaries with a new fork block, waiting for you, after that we could not delay any longer the vulnerability fix. No one from your team contacted me after this message and until the end of February when the flow of accusations came.
ChekaZ posted that you did not show your 0.17 code before the release, and you did not inform me about what it would contain. That is one of reasons why it was not possible to build anything on 0.17, another reason was that you suggested unsafe solution to fix the vulnerability, with a split of chain.
I did share the codebase ( 0.18.1.L ) beforehand with them, they could review it and leave comments/suggestions. They on their end, never shared the 0.17 code. As they stopped answering DMs, we decided to move ahead, lay out the plans and plan the fork accordingly.
Most of the services were happy that they got notified and upgraded accordingly.
Now 1-2 days before the HardFork takes place, the old devs release a Version without ANY commit history. The Repository has 20 commits, the commits aren't labeld or easily reviewable. Changes werent commited properly, so the commits are just a cluster of old and new code.
Now the 0.17 version does introduces new consensus rules, the problem is they didnt do it via a set block height, which you would normally do if you introduce something new regarding the consensus ( HardFork ). - The Problem here is that the 0.17 version instantly refuses the 0.13 & 0.18 clients which lead to a split of the Blockchain. So now there are 2 chains, the ( 0.13 + 0.18 Chain ) & the ( 0.17 ) Chain.
I did not know about the vulnerability before ChekaZ told me about it in late Jan, 2020
Also biggest issue:
( Security Flaw!!! )
ChekaZ started to work in September, 2019, on optional wallet, released MoonWord in November
MoonWord has been released under Version 0.13.9.1
started to work on SmartLikes, was posting updates at Bitcointalk and at other channels, he told even Telegram community initially was glad to have him on board. You did not inform me about vulnerability, I didn't know about it before ChekaZ informed me, it's unfair to blame me for not fixing it before. Moreover, you know that you asked to make additional stress tests for Smart Likes and that delayed the release. The 0.18 release was not mine, it was prepared by ChekaZ and Peter Bushnell (who consulted hundreds of forks), I did not give instructions how to fix the vulnerability, it was their initiative that the vulnerability had to be fixed fast and with their 2 step solution, not to split the chain.
My understanding is that you did not like the fact that those experts did not approve your solution which you discussed with ChekaZ, and that you wanted to deliver finally your wallet, while Taranis thought in terms of 'competition' and did not accept that it would look like your team after 2 years did not provide the secure wallet, while other devs did it. Meanwhile we were waiting for your 'green light' for 0.18.1
Finally after several days of silence from you we decided to make a step, the vulnerability had to be fixed immediately and with a safe solution, recommended by the expert.
I'll ask if he would be up for it. - I say again this is urgent and I dont think without a valid reason we should postpone that release.
I'll join their discord and try to talk with them today, if it doesnt get set today, we probably would need to increase the fork height as its getting tighter each day.
We dont know what their version includes. They didnt share code. -
Thats not true, their Version also requires a HardFork, they just didnt plan it. So if they release their version and not 100% of the network upgrades instantly, the network will just HardFork on its own. With out Version, we've set a HardFork Block, so 0.13.9 is supported UNTIL the HardFork block and will be rejected afterwards. Theirs is just super risky and will most likely leave a chainsplit, if not even kill the Mooncoin blockchain.
You say that 0.18 is insecure, but you understand that there is 2 step solution, not to split the chain.
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.
It was recommended by widely known and trusted expert Peter Bushnell, Feathercoin founder, normally anyone looking for collaboration would just agree with the expert, and if there are other minor issues, discovered by you, why not report them? The 2 step solution (1st step, restoring validation with the fork block to let people safely update, 2nd step restoring historical validation without split of chain) turned out to be ideal target for accusations, as soon as the 1st step is done it is so easy and effective to accuse that the version is 'insecure', 'incomplete', while another version is fully secure (with a split of chain though).
0.13 and 0.18 are on the same chain, 0.17 is forked.
It's unfair to accuse 0.18 of all this mess and discredit everyone who was involved with it in eyes of crypto community. If you wanted your 0.17 release, you could just discuss it with us, to show it to ChekaZ, transparently inform what it will contain, announce it at Bitcointalk, everything could be solved via dialogue.
0.17 was on a separate chain before March, 1, when at your pool 100 times more than regular hashrate was used to make 0.17 a main chain, without this action the 0.17 would remain insecure, on a separate chain.
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://i.imgur.com/uJVhR8i_d.jpg?maxwidth=5000 Because I got the impression from Agswinner that no one wanted the burn to happen until some legal issue is complete sometime this summer, I mean everything has been unlocked for two years and you all have had physical access to the wallet and nothing moved.
How could it be possible even in the theory that 'we all have had physical access to the wallet' of Vassilis? Do you realize that we live in different countries, don't know each other in real life? Only polemarhos met Vassilis in real life, how could we all get a physical access to the wallet in question, even if imagine that we all would live in the same town?
So I guess I was at lease in part the reason we are still using scrypt and not ballon hash. But I never claimed to have vetted all the code in that wallet. I didn't build that wallet. I didn't release that wallet. I did help Vas debug some issues he was working on by providing debug logs. I assumed that Vas was vetting the code, but I'm now willing to bet that the user mooncoin_foundation paid him and instructed him to simply compile the code and release it.
I never said you built or released the 0.13 wallet. I said you were the reason barrysty1e's wallet with Balloon hash was not used and that you helped Vassilis. Only you andVassilis could know details of your collaboration. You said your contribution in 2017 was small. But when you replaced Vassilis about 2 years ago, in 2018, took over his Github with 0.13.9, was it not important for you to audit the code? We all were using this insecure wallet till Feb, 2020. We all were not coders and were sure you're working, caring about it and we just trusted you.
I am pleased to announce that I will be working with the new Mooncoin team replacing Vas to maintain and deliver new features in the mooncoin core wallet (
https://github.com/mooncoincore/wallet).
And even before, from my PMs sent to your previous account 'mebagger':
I'm not a coder unfortunately, just an investor.
Are you able to analyze the code to find possible vulnerabilities if any?
can you please cite all Mooncoin addresses which are unspendable in the new release, and the part of the code?
Thank you!
You answered:
2) warp sync - can it have potential vulnerabilities, if not, why didn't Satoshi implement this simple solution to sync faster?
Not that I can see. Looking at the code it simply speeds up the syncing process if you have less blocks than 1112500 and spot checks the pow on those blocks. Once the download is complete you can always rescan the blockchain in full on disk. Network operations just happen faster when you can transfer larger chuncks of data at a time. I have sync'ed the client from scratch a few times now. It is considerably faster than before.
The code I have reviewed looks fine James commented the code well and it's readable. It is based on the newer version of litecoin's code base so it should be more secure than the older version of the mooncoin wallet.
I also asked Vassilis to audit the code:
from my PM to polemarhos888:
Hello,
yesterday I've sent a PM to Vasillis, to help with analyzing of barry's new release for possible vulnerabilities.
And in 2018 a dev, recommended by Cointopay (MoonCoinTrev) was invited to audit 0.13.9 after known events, unfortunately, the initiative was blocked by Telegram group, the dev refused to work after their accusations:
Moon's problems aren't in the code.
Why is a dev introducing himself with no background, a shortened forename and no explanation?
I'll ask again, is MF trying to undermine Moon?
I mentioned your contribution not to blame you or anyone. Before the tragic event with 62 B it was one of the best periods in Mooncoin history when a dev and Mooncoin community worked together.
The point was that 0.13.9 was a community thing, not only a dev thing. Someone found Vassilis, some members helped him with issues, someone was auditing the code, other people donated money to Vassilis. Not to blame Vassilis, either, but it is not fair to blame non tech members who donate money to devs and teams that they are responsible for their code after that.
Vassilis and 0.13.9 were blamed for broken protection, but first move from 'frozen' addresses happened on March, 2017, months before Vassilis came. And why barrysty1e is blamed, if he did what he could. No one knows everything in crypto. And if there were no protection, coins could be moved as well.
About coin lock in 0.18, my understanding that coin burn without a private key would require a fork anyway, it means that coin lock never competes with coin burn (one who makes coin burn, easily removes coin lock in the release) coin lock just adds 'better than nothing' protection not to leave coins completely unprotected. I thought we discussed it before the release, but you posted that you didn't understand why coin lock instead of coin burn.
From my PMs to you about coin lock:
It is possible to freeze coins if the owner of address will not organise 51 attack to hack the protection.
One more feature which is present in ChekaZ release, the 1st address will be frozen, I understand that this solution is not 100%, but it is better than nothing.
I now see that I didn't mention 2 other addresses from 2014, but my understanding was it's known as they went from previous versions, without saying, nothing new, while the 1st address was in question.
On Jun, 11, 2018 I have sent to you a detailed description of SmartLikes technology to implement it.
After more than 1 year passed and there were no results, we started to think about whether to invite someone else, you said that you didn't mind:
If you have a Dev that has proposed solutions to all this I'm more than happy to review the code and test it out.
Why I did not contact Michi, my understanding was that she was involved with Dogecoin and simply had no time to code Mooncoin wallet, that you are the only relevant person, anyway I thought that if Michi was involved, she would know from you about our collaboration.
I was thinking that she was not involved any longer, at least not involved actively, I asked Michi in March, 2018 (after she compiled a Mac wallet) whether she would like to be a lead dev, if the community would agree,
Hello, Michi.
Thank you for your efforts.
Do you agree to become a leading dev for Mooncoin (if the community agrees)?
No one minded, and in 2018 it looked like Michi was onboard, but there were no messages from Michi since 2018, no single post at Bitcointalk, before these events,
that made me think that she just had no time to work with the project.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31799;sa=showPostsNo posts between 2015 and March, 2020.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1938927;sa=showPostsOnly 2 posts in March, 2018.
In my post above and before I have stated there were a number of vulnerabilities. WE fixed the CE issue. WE found out what had happened by our own volition and WE added that to the list of work that had to be done to fix ALL issues. All the while you offered no support whatsoever. Noone in ANN offered any support whatsoever.
No support? Coinexchange issue was not about the vulnerability with validation. It was a double spend while the hashrate was very low due to long stagnation with development. The fix of issue which you mentioned was the initiative of compensating (by agswinner) lost millions of MOON to Coinexchange for re-enabling Mooncoin wallet, deposits and withdrawals.
It is right to continue the dialogue with coinexchange, maybe they give us a discount. I do not remember if they have listed MOON, at that time, for Free. To be able to move on, i can donate 200M.
But you did help by contacting them and reducing the number of coins to pay. I thanked you for that and asked members about donations to your team.
My PM to Taranis (2018)
Hi, first of all thank you for your communication with CE.
All good things which you do for the MOON project and for MOON investors will be appreciated.
If they really agreed on 180M, it's a good news. 10-15 percent of saved amount could be donated to you for your help in this case. Please send their Mooncoin address to agswinner, and if you'd like you could publish your MOON address in your signature.
On April, 2 in 2018 mebagger2 asked my opinion about your group, probably deciding to join you or not, and I told him that I didn't know you, however, Mooncoin was decentralised and any team was welcome until it did good things.
