[ANN] Blackcoin Protocol [BLK] | Home of PoS 3.0 | No ICO | No Pre-mine

[michelvankessel]

REMINDER: As mentioned also by BlackcoinDev (NOT Blackcoin-Dev). Any post talking about Blackcoin protocol software releases other then Blackcoin More v26.2.0 and Blackcoin More v28.4.0 node software, downloadable from sources below, are NOT endorsed by the Blackcoin developers and community:

blackcoinmore.org
blackcoin.org
blackcoin.nl
blackcoin.dev
github.com/coinblack/blackcoin-more

Be extremely careful out there! There are currently no Blackcoin versions that support PoW/goldrush (and never will be). Quantum resistant features or being investigated. The Blackcoin developers and community is currently integrating upstream code from Bitcoin Core v28.4.0 into the main services and node software. We will keep repeating this type of messages to protect the community.

Feel free to contact us for questions via the known channels.

p.s. BlackcoinDev is one of the developers from the Blackcoin project. Blackcoin-Dev is not related, in any way, to the Blackcoin project. I know it is confusing, but that is probably the goal. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

This is correct. BlackcoinDev is NOT the same as Blackcoin-Dev. This is very confusing, sorry about this folks! #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

My GitHub profile is https://github.com/blackcoindev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

REMINDER: Any post talking about Blackcoin protocol software releases other then Blackcoin More v26.2.0 and Blackcoin More v28.4.0 node software, downloadable from sources below, are NOT endorsed by the Blackcoin developers and community:

blackcoinmore.org
blackcoin.org
blackcoin.nl
blackcoin.dev
github.com/coinblack/blackcoin-more

Be extremely careful out there! There are currently no Blackcoin versions that support PoW/goldrush (and never will be). Quantum resistant features or being investigated. The Blackcoin developers and community is currently integrating upstream code from Bitcoin Core v28.4.0 into the main services and node software. We will keep repeating this type of messages to protect the community.

Feel free to contact us for questions via the known channels.

p.s. BlackcoinDev is one of the developers from the Blackcoin project. Blackcoin-Dev is not related, in any way, to the Blackcoin project. I know it is confusing, but that is probably the goal. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

[BlackcoinDev]

REMINDER: BlackcoinDev (Me) is NOT the same developer as Blackcoin-Dev. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

Blackcoin Github is https://github.com/CoinBlack
My GitHub profile is https://github.com/BlackcoinDev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

Blackcoin is currently running stable on v26.2.0 and close to release v28.4.0.

[QuantumQuasar]

There are currently no Blackcoin versions that support PoW/goldrush (and never will be).

That categorical statement is contradicted by a public implementation and live network data. Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 is independently published, and its source, signed tag, checksums, SBOM, provenance, migration rules, and signing limitations are available for inspection.

The implementation does not convert Blackcoin’s base consensus from Proof of Stake to Proof of Work. Gold Rush is a separate, opt-in, height-governed Protocol V4 shadow-accounting path. Current shadow credits are synthetic, phase-locked, and not ordinary spendable BLK or circulating supply.

One maintainer group can state its own endorsement position; it cannot establish a unanimous position for every network participant. Participation is measurable. At height 5,958,108, the project explorer’s connected-peer sample observed 9 of 16 peers advertising Blackcoin 30.x: five v30.1.3 peers and four v30.1.1 peers. That is 56.25% of the observed sample. It is not presented as a census of every reachable node. The live sample and timestamp are public:

https://projectblackcoin.org/api/explorer/network

The Gold Rush window is active through block 6,192,999. Participation is optional, and running software does not guarantee a reward. Anyone evaluating the implementation should inspect the exact release, use an isolated data directory, retain a rollback path, and decide from evidence:

https://projectblackcoin.org/
https://projectblackcoin.org/verify

An endorsement statement is not a source review, code audit, or reproducible defect report. A technical objection should identify the exact tag, source line, build artifact, or test result at issue.

BlackcoinDev (Me) is NOT the same developer as Blackcoin-Dev.

Correct. BlackcoinDev, CoinBlack, and Blackcoin-Dev are distinct identities and repositories. Blackcoin-Dev does not claim that v30.1.3 is a CoinBlack release.

The relevant point is that Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 exists as an independently published implementation that anyone can inspect and test. The project website provides the release, unified base-chain and Protocol V4 explorer, live network data, migration heights, verification records, developer documentation, and a read-only OpenAPI surface:

https://projectblackcoin.org/developers

The observed 30.x peer share does not establish universal endorsement, but it does establish substantial voluntary deployment in the connected-peer sample. Users should compare the repositories, verify the artifacts, and decide for themselves rather than treating an identity or endorsement dispute as a software audit.

[michelvankessel]

This is correct. BlackcoinDev is NOT the same as Blackcoin-Dev. This is very confusing, sorry about this folks! #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

My GitHub profile is https://github.com/blackcoindev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

Quote from: michelvankessel on July 16, 2026, 03:47:16 PM
REMINDER: Any post talking about Blackcoin protocol software releases other then Blackcoin More v26.2.0 and Blackcoin More v28.4.0 node software, downloadable from sources below, are NOT endorsed by the Blackcoin developers and community:

blackcoinmore.org
blackcoin.org
blackcoin.nl
blackcoin.dev
github.com/coinblack/blackcoin-more

Be extremely careful out there! There are currently no Blackcoin versions that support PoW/goldrush (and never will be). Quantum resistant features or being investigated. The Blackcoin developers and community is currently integrating upstream code from Bitcoin Core v28.4.0 into the main services and node software. We will keep repeating this type of messages to protect the community.

Feel free to contact us for questions via the known channels.

p.s. BlackcoinDev is one of the developers from the Blackcoin project. Blackcoin-Dev is not related, in any way, to the Blackcoin project. I know it is confusing, but that is probably the goal. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

REMINDER: BlackcoinDev (Me) is NOT the same developer as Blackcoin-Dev. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

Blackcoin Github is https://github.com/CoinBlack
My GitHub profile is https://github.com/BlackcoinDev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

Blackcoin is currently running stable on v26.2.0 and close to release v28.4.0.

[QuantumQuasar]

The identity distinction is not disputed. Blackcoin-Dev does not claim to be BlackcoinDev or CoinBlack and does not claim their endorsement.

What is disputed is the conclusion that lack of endorsement resolves the software question. Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 is an independently published implementation intended for the existing Blackcoin chain. Its exact source commit is 86c6855ab135afe784635a564f21c74d67aa366b. The source commit and annotated tag are SSH-signed. Platform-signing limits, SBOM, provenance, release notes, and the open P1 issue #37 are disclosed:
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/releases/tag/v30.1.3
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/issues/37

Blackcoin mainnet remains Proof of Stake after height 10,000. Protocol V4 Gold Rush Argon2id proofs are transaction-carried inside canonical PoS blocks; they are not separate PoW base blocks. During Gold Rush, Protocol V4 credits are synthetic, non-Merkle and phase-locked. They are not spendable or circulating base-layer BLK.

An identity or endorsement warning is not a source review, code audit, or reproducible defect report. A technical objection should identify the exact tag, source line, build artifact, or test result at issue. Users can inspect the release, explorer, migration heights, verification evidence, integration documentation, and read-only OpenAPI here:
https://projectblackcoin.org/
https://projectblackcoin.org/developers
https://projectblackcoin.org/explorer

Users should verify the evidence and decide independently. No security, reward, listing, or calendar-date outcome is guaranteed.

[BlackcoinDev]

REMINDER: BlackcoinDev (Me) is NOT the same developer as Blackcoin-Dev. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

Blackcoin Github is https://github.com/CoinBlack
My GitHub profile is https://github.com/BlackcoinDev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

Blackcoin is currently running stable on v26.2.0 and close to release v28.4.0.

[QuantumQuasar]

REMINDER: BlackcoinDev (Me) is NOT the same developer as Blackcoin-Dev. #StaySafe #DontTrustButVerify

Blackcoin Github is https://github.com/CoinBlack
My GitHub profile is https://github.com/BlackcoinDev
GPG fingerprint: 7F9EFB458122B8A39C46947DA87935AB61FABA71

Blackcoin is currently running stable on v26.2.0 and close to release v28.4.0.

Identity and security are separate questions

Correct: BlackcoinDev and Blackcoin-Dev are different maintainers. Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 is an independently maintained Blackcoin implementation. It is not presented as a CoinBlack release, and no endorsement from CoinBlack or the historical maintenance team is claimed.

“Don’t trust; verify” is the right standard for every wallet. Verification, however, requires technical evidence. Post #586 identifies no affected v30.1.3 commit, package hash, malicious code, vulnerability, consensus failure, or reproducible test. A maintainer-name distinction is not a security finding. If there is a concrete issue, please identify the exact source commit or artifact SHA-256, affected platform, reproduction steps, expected behavior, observed result, and sanitized evidence—or use the private security-reporting process. Reproducible findings will be investigated. Separate authorship should not be mistaken for evidence that software is malicious or fraudulent.

What v30.1.3 actually implements

During Gold Rush, v30.1.3 retains Blackcoin’s existing chain history and Proof-of-Stake base consensus. V4 wallets publish fee-paying, legacy-valid OP_RETURN transactions. Legacy nodes can relay and include those underlying transactions, while v30.1.3 nodes deterministically interpret QQSIGNAL and QQSPROOF into separate authenticated synthetic shadow-accounting state. This is a replay-derived accounting overlay anchored in canonical base blocks, not a second blockchain.

Stock legacy clients can continue following compatible base-chain activity during this phase, but they do not interpret Protocol V4 shadow accounting or provide its V4 signaling, shadow RPC/indexing, Argon2id claim, and supported height-gated ML-DSA-44 migration workflows. Operators who want to evaluate or participate in V4 therefore need a current V4-capable client. Blackcoin block production remains PoS; the optional Argon2id PoW feature is a claim transaction carried inside PoS blocks, not PoW blocks and not “PoW staking.”

Gold Rush credits are synthetic, non-Merkle, and phase-locked. They are not currently spendable base-layer outputs, exchange deposits, circulating supply, or guaranteed rewards. ML-DSA funding and spending begin at Migration height 6,193,000; this is not a claim that the entire present chain is already quantum-proof or that the implementation is FIPS-certified.

Apply verification to v30.1.3 as well

The current v30.1.3 source record is commit 86c6855ab135afe784635a564f21c74d67aa366b. The exact commit and annotated tag are SSH-signed and verified by GitHub. The release publishes SHA-256 checksums, an SPDX SBOM, provenance, and attestation/evidence records.

Those controls establish source identity and traceability; they are not an independent security audit or certification. Windows packages are not Authenticode-signed. macOS packages are ad-hoc signed rather than Developer-ID signed and are not notarized. The project also discloses the open P1 Gold Rush PoW wallet-recovery issue #37. That issue changes no consensus rule, but it can leave the built-in miner paused until the affected claim family is resolved. These limits are public rather than hidden.

Exact v30.1.3 release record
Verification guide
Security reporting and known issues
Live base-chain and V4 accounting view

Back up wallets, verify the exact release, test in a controlled environment, and retain a rollback path. Technical disagreement is welcome. It should be addressed against exact code, hashes, and reproducible behavior—not by implication.

[QuantumQuasar]

Independent Blackcoin-Dev update: sponsor-funded first Protocol V4 claim

Blackcoin-Dev has opened a limited free-claim service for people who do not yet hold BLK. This is a separate, independent implementation; it is not a CoinBlack release or a mandatory upgrade.

What the service does

• Create an ML-DSA quantum address in v30.1.3 with getnewquantumaddress.
• The sponsor node pays the fee input and mines a Gold Rush claim for that address.
• No purchase, deposit, private key, seed phrase, or payment is requested.
• Limits are one award per address, one submission per IP per 24 hours, and 25 awards per day across the pool. Claims are processed one at a time in queue order.

What the award is — and is not

The award is a Protocol V4 phase-locked synthetic shadow-ledger credit. It is not spendable or circulating BLK today. Under the published V4 schedule it unlocks at the Migration cutover, block 6,193,000. The amount is the PoW jackpot at the solve height and changes over time; no amount, price, yield, or return is promised in advance.

Safety and verification

• The repository's live SECURITY.md is currently written for v30.1.1, not v30.1.3, and says the configured final source is not the reviewed published binary. This announcement does not claim an independent security audit. Treat v30.1.3 as an isolated evaluation candidate until current release-specific security and exact-source reconciliation evidence is published.
• Use an isolated test wallet and datadir with no valuable funds.
• ML-DSA quantum keys are non-HD. Back up the wallet after creating every quantum address that the backup must recover.
• Packaged binaries are not Authenticode-signed or Developer-ID notarized. Verify the source/tag and published SHA-256 records before testing; the repository policy states that its traceability controls are not a Blackcoin-Dev package signature.
• Never provide a seed phrase, private key, wallet file, or payment to anyone offering a claim.

Free claim and complete rules:
https://projectblackcoin.org/free-claim

Immutable v30.1.3 release record:
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/releases/tag/v30.1.3

Live claim-pool status:
https://projectblackcoin.org/api/free-claim/status

Security and limitations:
https://projectblackcoin.org/security

Issue tracker:
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/issues

The public explorer upstream is currently reporting degraded readiness, while the claim-pool status endpoint is responding. Check the live status before testing and report reproducible defects with sanitized logs.

This post is an invitation to test and verify an independent implementation. It is not investment advice or a claim of CoinBlack endorsement.

[BlackcoinDev]

That is some fresh stinky bullshit 

[QuantumQuasar]

Post #589 addresses none of the facts in #588.

If any statement in the free-claim announcement is false, identify the statement and provide evidence. The announcement discloses what the service does, who pays the fee input, the per-address and per-IP limits, the daily cap, the phase-locked and non-spendable status of the award today, the unlock height, the non-HD key-backup requirement, unsigned-package limitations, the stale v30.1.1 SECURITY.md, the absence of any claimed independent audit, and the degraded explorer upstream.

A technical rebuttal can provide any of the following:

• the exact sentence alleged to be false;
• a source line or consensus rule that contradicts it;
• a transaction or RPC transcript showing a different result; or
• a reproducible security failure with sanitized evidence.

Calling all of that “bullshit” provides none of those things. It does not help an operator decide whether to test, and it does not rebut a single disclosed limitation.

Blackcoin-Dev has repeatedly stated that v30.1.3 is an independent implementation, not a CoinBlack release or a mandatory CoinBlack upgrade. We are not asking anyone to trust a label. We are pointing readers to source, an immutable release record, live endpoints, known limitations, and a public issue tracker so each claim can be checked.

Historical maintainers are invited to review the code and file a version-specific reproduction. If they believe the sponsor-funded claim service misstates its behavior, the shortest answer is evidence. If the response remains only labels and insults, readers can judge the absence of a technical answer for themselves.

Free claim and complete rules:
https://projectblackcoin.org/free-claim

Live claim-pool status:
https://projectblackcoin.org/api/free-claim/status

Immutable v30.1.3 release:
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/releases/tag/v30.1.3

Issue tracker:
https://github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/issues

[michelvankessel]

very very smelly 

That is some fresh stinky bullshit 

[QuantumQuasar]

Your lack of engagement on the actual build essentially tells everyone you have nothing to offer.  It's time for you guys to step aside and let the community move in a new direction. 

Your team has let this coin almost go to the graveyard, and you offer no solutions for the community.  Either get onboard or you guys need to just move on and quit holding the community back.

very very smelly 

That is some fresh stinky bullshit 

[michelvankessel]

You call "the community": Two guys, Claude code, a few nodes using VPN for multiple IPs, and some BLK to generate transactions?

yes, that smells like bullshit for sure. nuff said!

Your lack of engagement on the actual build essentially tells everyone you have nothing to offer.  It's time for you guys to step aside and let the community move in a new direction. 

Your team has let this coin almost go to the graveyard, and you offer no solutions for the community.  Either get onboard or you guys need to just move on and quit holding the community back.

very very smelly 

That is some fresh stinky bullshit 

[QuantumQuasar]

You might think you have a clue about what you are talking about, but you couldn't be more off base.  

Your antiquated and dated website tells us everything we need to know about why we haven't seen any real advancement in this blockchain for years.  It's very clear you know our implementation is sound, you guys just want to try and maintain control over the chain for your own personal interests instead of letting advancements happen.

You call "the community": Two guys, Claude code, a few nodes using VPN for multiple IPs, and some BLK to generate transactions?

yes, that smells like bullshit for sure. nuff said!

Your lack of engagement on the actual build essentially tells everyone you have nothing to offer.  It's time for you guys to step aside and let the community move in a new direction.  

Your team has let this coin almost go to the graveyard, and you offer no solutions for the community.  Either get onboard or you guys need to just move on and quit holding the community back.

very very smelly  

That is some fresh stinky bullshit  

[michelvankessel]

We are the community, I am part of it, you are not.

I don´t care about your implementation, it is unreadable, a big AI-slop.

IF you wanted Blackcoin to succeed you would have participated as a developer as part of the community, not against the community. I speak with the community daily, so I know how they feel about this.

again...big bullshit, all of this.

You might think you have a clue about what you are talking about, but you couldn't be more off base.  

Your antiquated and dated website tells us everything we need to know about why we haven't seen any real advancement in this blockchain for years.  It's very clear you know our implementation is sound, you guys just want to try and maintain control over the chain for your own personal interests instead of letting advancements happen.

You call "the community": Two guys, Claude code, a few nodes using VPN for multiple IPs, and some BLK to generate transactions?

yes, that smells like bullshit for sure. nuff said!

Your lack of engagement on the actual build essentially tells everyone you have nothing to offer.  It's time for you guys to step aside and let the community move in a new direction.  

Your team has let this coin almost go to the graveyard, and you offer no solutions for the community.  Either get onboard or you guys need to just move on and quit holding the community back.

very very smelly  

That is some fresh stinky bullshit  

[BlackcoinDev]

These QQ individuals contacted all Blackcoin services providers, and asked them to upgrade the daemon/node software to this shadow fork Blackcoin:30.1.3 gold rush version. But all service providers contacted me, asking me what is going on and showed me all the emails, messages, and requests. I explained to them what is going on.

These QQ individuals contacted all Blackcoin OGs, asking them to participate is this scheme, but the OGs contacted me to ask what is going on.

These QQ individuals noticed that the stakers are not migrating to this shadow fork, instead the stakers contacted me to ask what is going on.

Nobody trusts individuals that do all of the above stuff.

I know it costs me most of my free time, but I don´t mind. I will keep protecting the Blackcoin community, the Blackcoin service providers, and the investors and stakers. 

REMINDER: Make sure to use the following domains and github:

blackcoinmore.org
blackcoin.org
blackcoin.nl
blackcoin.dev
github.com/coinblack/

We are the community, I am part of it, you are not.

I don´t care about your implementation, it is unreadable, a big AI-slop.

IF you wanted Blackcoin to succeed you would have participated as a developer as part of the community, not against the community. I speak with the community daily, so I know how they feel about this.

again...big bullshit, all of this.

You might think you have a clue about what you are talking about, but you couldn't be more off base.  

Your antiquated and dated website tells us everything we need to know about why we haven't seen any real advancement in this blockchain for years.  It's very clear you know our implementation is sound, you guys just want to try and maintain control over the chain for your own personal interests instead of letting advancements happen.

You call "the community": Two guys, Claude code, a few nodes using VPN for multiple IPs, and some BLK to generate transactions?

yes, that smells like bullshit for sure. nuff said!

Your lack of engagement on the actual build essentially tells everyone you have nothing to offer.  It's time for you guys to step aside and let the community move in a new direction.  

Your team has let this coin almost go to the graveyard, and you offer no solutions for the community.  Either get onboard or you guys need to just move on and quit holding the community back.

very very smelly  

That is some fresh stinky bullshit  

[QuantumQuasar]

We are the community, I am part of it, you are not. I don´t care about your implementation, it is unreadable, a big AI-slop.

These QQ individuals contacted all Blackcoin services providers, and asked them to upgrade the daemon/node software to this shadow fork Blackcoin:30.1.3 gold rush version. But all service providers contacted me...

No individual, account, or maintainer gets to define the entire decentralized community or exercise a veto over independent work on MIT-licensed software. Holders, operators, reviewers, service providers, and users make their own decisions. Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 is an independent, same-genesis implementation. It is not a CoinBlack release, and we do not represent it as one.

Calling the source “AI-slop” immediately after saying you do not care about the implementation is not a technical review. You cannot decline to review the code and then present your dislike as a technical finding. Identify the exact file, function, commit, consensus rule, failing test, block or transaction fixture, or reproducible incompatibility. We will address a concrete defect in public. Until one is supplied, this is rhetoric, not evidence.

The exact v30.1.3 source commit is 86c6855ab135afe784635a564f21c74d67aa366b. The source commit and annotated tag are SSH-signed and verified by GitHub. The release also publishes checksums, an SBOM, provenance records, and explicit limitations. Those limitations matter: the Windows packages are not Authenticode-signed, the macOS packages are not notarized, some unchanged-core evidence is inherited from v30.1.1 rather than rerun at the v30.1.3 SHA, and no independent security audit is claimed. That is disclosure, not concealment.

The assertion that “all” service providers, OGs, stakers, or community members contacted one maintainer is not publicly verifiable evidence. Publish redacted records with the recipients’ consent, or narrow the claim. We apply the same standard to ourselves: peer and IP counts are not proof of independent adoption, and we will not present them that way.

For avoidance of doubt, project communications must identify v30.1.3 as an independent implementation and request non-binding technical or integration review. No service provider should replace production software solely because of an email. Providers should isolate the client, verify the exact source and artifacts, run their own tests, compare behavior, and decide for themselves. If any recipient received a message that inaccurately described v30.1.3 as a CoinBlack release or demanded an unsafe production cutover, forward a redacted copy to exchange@projectblackcoin.org. We will correct an inaccurate statement publicly.

Protecting users requires accurate labels, reproducible evidence, and disclosed risk. It does not justify calling a competing implementation “fake” or “untrusted” without identifying a reproducible defect. Our challenge is straightforward: choose one testable technical claim, reproduce it against the exact v30.1.3 source, and publish the result. Open an issue here: github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/issues. Verification instructions are here: projectblackcoin.org/verify.

We will not withdraw an independently developed implementation because competing maintainers object to it. We will continue accurately labeled development, testing, documentation, and outreach. Technical evidence will determine technical merit. Independent operators and service providers will decide adoption.

[michelvankessel]

That is a nice story. In the meantime you and your friend create a massive Ai-slop code mess and expect the Blackcoin community to review that? You asked them, nobody seems to care. You asked some of the Blackcoin More developers, you asked the OGs, you asked service providers, you asked on social media, but nobody seems to care.

At the same time you are creating yourself a completely CENTRALIZED invisible hybrid PoW/PoS gold rush shadow fork with shadow coins, using VPN providers to fake node counts, and "claim" that your software is now "leading", and people should upgrade to the ¨most recent version".

It is clearly visible on the Blackcoin chain, that you have currently an X amount of BLK running on a few nodes, using an X amount of addresses, those nodes create OP_RETURN messages. Probably all handled by Ai agents. That is what you call "the Blackcoin community"? That is a Centralized token, running on top of a decentralized chain. 

As you can see everywhere, the community has spoken. There is not a single soul in the Blackcoin community that trusts your software, no matter how much more Claude tokens, VPN connections, "evidence", and OP_RETURN messages you throw against it.

REMINDER: Make sure to use the following domains and github:

blackcoinmore.org
blackcoin.org
blackcoin.nl
blackcoin.dev
github.com/coinblack/

We are the community, I am part of it, you are not. I don´t care about your implementation, it is unreadable, a big AI-slop.

These QQ individuals contacted all Blackcoin services providers, and asked them to upgrade the daemon/node software to this shadow fork Blackcoin:30.1.3 gold rush version. But all service providers contacted me...

No individual, account, or maintainer gets to define the entire decentralized community or exercise a veto over independent work on MIT-licensed software. Holders, operators, reviewers, service providers, and users make their own decisions. Blackcoin-Dev v30.1.3 is an independent, same-genesis implementation. It is not a CoinBlack release, and we do not represent it as one.

Calling the source “AI-slop” immediately after saying you do not care about the implementation is not a technical review. You cannot decline to review the code and then present your dislike as a technical finding. Identify the exact file, function, commit, consensus rule, failing test, block or transaction fixture, or reproducible incompatibility. We will address a concrete defect in public. Until one is supplied, this is rhetoric, not evidence.

The exact v30.1.3 source commit is 86c6855ab135afe784635a564f21c74d67aa366b. The source commit and annotated tag are SSH-signed and verified by GitHub. The release also publishes checksums, an SBOM, provenance records, and explicit limitations. Those limitations matter: the Windows packages are not Authenticode-signed, the macOS packages are not notarized, some unchanged-core evidence is inherited from v30.1.1 rather than rerun at the v30.1.3 SHA, and no independent security audit is claimed. That is disclosure, not concealment.

The assertion that “all” service providers, OGs, stakers, or community members contacted one maintainer is not publicly verifiable evidence. Publish redacted records with the recipients’ consent, or narrow the claim. We apply the same standard to ourselves: peer and IP counts are not proof of independent adoption, and we will not present them that way.

For avoidance of doubt, project communications must identify v30.1.3 as an independent implementation and request non-binding technical or integration review. No service provider should replace production software solely because of an email. Providers should isolate the client, verify the exact source and artifacts, run their own tests, compare behavior, and decide for themselves. If any recipient received a message that inaccurately described v30.1.3 as a CoinBlack release or demanded an unsafe production cutover, forward a redacted copy to exchange@projectblackcoin.org. We will correct an inaccurate statement publicly.

Protecting users requires accurate labels, reproducible evidence, and disclosed risk. It does not justify calling a competing implementation “fake” or “untrusted” without identifying a reproducible defect. Our challenge is straightforward: choose one testable technical claim, reproduce it against the exact v30.1.3 source, and publish the result. Open an issue here: github.com/Blackcoin-Dev/Blackcoin/issues. Verification instructions are here: projectblackcoin.org/verify.

We will not withdraw an independently developed implementation because competing maintainers object to it. We will continue accurately labeled development, testing, documentation, and outreach. Technical evidence will determine technical merit. Independent operators and service providers will decide adoption.