[ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! KGW exploit FIXED 4/3/2014

[coinflow]

Ok rocks!.)
Can you win 1 btc.... Another exchange   https://askcoin.net/votes   Mooncoin

Thanks for contacting Cryptsy about that. Did you also send them the link to pemes posting?
 --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=389403.msg8997145#msg8997145

Could you keep us updated, what they answer?

[agswinner]

Hello Andrea,

Thank you for contacting Cryptsy.

Thank you so much for giving us this information.

Please let me know if you need further assistance.

 
Sincerely,
Michelle
Cryptsy.com

[coinflow]

... if they need a linux wallet I can deliver a compiled one.

Since the latest Linux-mooncoind-version is still the one deaconboogie has created, they could get it here:
https://github.com/realmooncoin/mooncoin

And compile it easily themselves from that repository.
I don't think, they'd use a precompiled one on their servers anyway, since every Linux-system is different and a wallet compiled on one distro would most probably not work on another without errors.

That's what made me wonder in the first place, why they would set the wallet in maintenance-mode at all ...  

Edit:
As an additional information: I've compiled several wallets from that code and it works flawlessly, if you have installed all needed dependencies (described there on GitHub) and on my Linux-version use

make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=- USE_IPV6=1 USE_QRCODE=1

instead of

make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=1 USE_IPV6=1 USE_QRCODE=1

[agswinner]

@MooncoinItalia: @cryptsy mooncoin wallet mainteinance https://t.co/VEHVJCynug

[coinflow]

@MooncoinItalia: @cryptsy mooncoin wallet mainteinance https://t.co/VEHVJCynug

Could you inform them also, that this page on their site is severely outdated:
https://www.cryptsy.com/currencies/view/105

The blockexplorer-link there is leading to nonsense and the values shown on that page seem to stem from the old explorer on mooncoin.info, which is - as we all know - offline since weeks now.
Maybe they just did not realize, that we have a new block explorer: http://moonchain.net
So you should send them that link, too.

[agswinner]

@MooncoinItalia: @cryptsy your mooncoin info severely outdated! new block Explorer is here http://t.co/a6yOPkvk1U

[gogota]

Hi gogota/chinatuakong,

nice to see you here again. But a question:
Doesn't this change mean, that the hardforking takes places already at block 250000? Because the if-statement relates to all blocks below 300000 and the previous if-statement is relating to all blocks lower than 250000. --> https://github.com/mooncoin-project/mooncoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1099

hi mr coinflow my financial consultant :

try to compile this file using "gcc test.c" and you will understand C a bit

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
   int a = 3;
   
   if (a <= 1)
   printf("a is maller than 2\n");
   
   else if (a <= 4)
   printf ("a is smaller than 5\n");
   
   else
   printf("a is 5 or above\n");
   
   return 0;
}


you can change the value of a and play with it.

I think the checkpoint file has nothing to do with the rewards

here you can study C : http://www.nongnu.org/c-prog-book/online/

my thinking : Do nothing with the main.cpp. the rewards going to be static at block 384401 anyway.. Let the multipool pump all they can. They will commit suicide after they knew how much this coin can climb.

[gogota]

11 lithoshi.............. wow !

[virtual_miner]

11 lithoshi.............. wow !

Still very low. 12 litosh must be minimum for this low production.

[coinflow]

Hi gogota/chinatuakong,

nice to see you here again. But a question:
Doesn't this change mean, that the hardforking takes places already at block 250000? Because the if-statement relates to all blocks below 300000 and the previous if-statement is relating to all blocks lower than 250000. --> https://github.com/mooncoin-project/mooncoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1099

hi mr coinflow my financial consultant :

try to compile this file using "gcc test.c" and you will understand C a bit

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
   int a = 3;
   
   if (a <= 1)
   printf("a is maller than 2\n");
   
   else if (a <= 4)
   printf ("a is smaller than 5\n");
   
   else
   printf("a is 5 or above\n");
   
   return 0;
}


you can change the value of a and play with it.

I think the checkpoint file has nothing to do with the rewards

here you can study C : http://www.nongnu.org/c-prog-book/online/

my thinking : Do nothing with the main.cpp. the rewards going to be static at block 384401 anyway.. Let the multipool pump all they can. They will commit suicide after they knew how much this coin can climb.

What does this file have to do with the rewarding scheme and/or hardforking? Can you elaborate on that? Any further information on the checkpointing?
And regarding main.cpp: the problem is not anymore, that multipools or someone else is pumping masses of coins into the market (That is only what led to the current low price). The problem is, that the smaller miners don't get what belong to them AND transactions are not confirmed in the timeframe as they should, because if the big rigs go away for a time - since they don't like to mine the small rewarded blocks - the small miners still have to deal with the high difficulty and therefore sometimes it takes very long to solve the block. I have observed this in the blockchain from time to time, when it took up to 45 minutes to find the next (small rewarded) block and directly after that in a timeframe of 1 minute 5-10 highly rewarded blocks were found immediately. So the honest miners do much more work AND moreover are poorly rewarded for that, too. THAT is the problem. It's simply unfair. So even if the coin climbs superhigh (which it definitely will, if we maintain it further), the honest miners still were rewarded unfair and got a much smaller portion of what they should. And that is NOT OK. That's why Dogecoin changed from random to static rewards long ago, too.

[gogota]

Mr coinflow :

current setting is :

Block rewards:

Blocks 1-100,000: 0-2,000,000 MOON
Blocks 100,001-200,000: 0-1,000,000 MOON
Blocks 200,001-250,000: 0-600,000 MOON
Blocks 250,001-300,000: 0-350,000 MOON
Blocks 300,001-350,000: 0-175,000 MOON
Blocks 350,001-375,000: 0-100,000 MOON
Blocks 375,001-384,400: 0-50,000 MOON

All future blocks are a fixed 29531 MOON.

new setting :

Blocks 1-100,000: 0-2,000,000 MOON
Blocks 100,001-200,000: 0-1,000,000 MOON
Blocks 200,001-250,000: 0-600,000 MOON
Blocks 250,001-300,000: 0-350,000 MOON
Blocks 300,001-350,000: 87,500 MOON
Blocks 350,001-375,000: 50,000 MOON
Blocks 375,001-384,400: 25,000 MOON

is that correct ? just my idea...

think carefully first, this is big decision.

[coinflow]

Mr coinflow :

current setting is :

Block rewards:

Blocks 1-100,000: 0-2,000,000 MOON
Blocks 100,001-200,000: 0-1,000,000 MOON
Blocks 200,001-250,000: 0-600,000 MOON
Blocks 250,001-300,000: 0-350,000 MOON
Blocks 300,001-350,000: 0-175,000 MOON
Blocks 350,001-375,000: 0-100,000 MOON
Blocks 375,001-384,400: 0-50,000 MOON

All future blocks are a fixed 29531 MOON.

new setting :

Blocks 1-100,000: 0-2,000,000 MOON
Blocks 100,001-200,000: 0-1,000,000 MOON
Blocks 200,001-250,000: 0-600,000 MOON
Blocks 250,001-300,000: 0-350,000 MOON
Blocks 300,001-350,000: 87,500 MOON
Blocks 350,001-375,000: 50,000 MOON
Blocks 375,001-384,400: 25,000 MOON

is that correct ? just my idea...

think carefully first, this is big decision.

That would be correct. But it's really a not so big decision. The number of coins rewarded per found block is the same. Only not spread via random algorithm, but statically. So EVERY block is rewarded with the exact identical amount of coins, that with the old algo would have been (theoretically) distributed also, but only by averaging out over a certain amount of time. Since miners can cheat by using a script to only switch into mining MOON, when a highly rewarded block is enticing, the random-scheme is flawed, as sad as it is. So at the end the sum of coins rewarded is staying exactly the same, only distributed evenly to all miners with no chance to cheat anymore for the ones with big rigs and dark intentions.

Edit: Typos
Edit 2: This: "All future blocks are a fixed 29531 MOON." would stay the same in the static-rewarded variant, of course.

[peme]

this would be the new changed source code in main.cpp if we start the switch to static block reward with block 250001:

   if(nHeight <= 100000) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 1999999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight > 193076 && nHeight < 203158) {
                nSubsidy = 2519841 * COIN; // for _roughly_ one week, the cost of the Apollo program will be paid back -- 25.4bn MOON!
        } else if(nHeight <= 203518) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 999999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight <= 250000) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 599999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight <= 300000) {
                nSubsidy = 175000;
        } else if(nHeight <= 350000) {
                nSubsidy = 87500;
        } else if(nHeight <= 375000) {
                nSubsidy = 50000;
        } else if(nHeight <= 384400) {
                nSubsidy = 25000;
        }

[coinflow]

11 Litoshis gone on Cryptsy. Sell-wall at 12 building up ...

[coinflow]

this would be the new changed source code in main.cpp if we start the switch to static block reward with block 250001:

   if(nHeight <= 100000) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 1999999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight > 193076 && nHeight < 203158) {
                nSubsidy = 2519841 * COIN; // for _roughly_ one week, the cost of the Apollo program will be paid back -- 25.4bn MOON!
        } else if(nHeight <= 203518) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 999999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight <= 250000) {
                nSubsidy = (1 + generateMTRandom(seed, 599999)) * COIN;
        } else if(nHeight <= 300000) {
                nSubsidy = 175000;
        } else if(nHeight <= 350000) {
                nSubsidy = 87500;
        } else if(nHeight <= 375000) {
                nSubsidy = 50000;
        } else if(nHeight <= 384400) {
                nSubsidy = 25000;
        }

I'd support that, definitely.

[gogota]

the up trend is nuts! I think BigVern is pumping the coin. No 2 hottest coin on cryptsy ltc market now

[coinflow]

the up trend is nuts! I think BigVern is pumping the coin. No 2 hottest coin on cryptsy ltc market now

He's already doing that alone by not opening the wallet on Cryptsy again. Because all the mining-rewards are not flowing into the market that way.

From www.cryptmarketcap.com:

Daily Top Gainers
Cryptobuck +121.01%
Mooncoin +28.20%
Batcoin +15.38%
Pesetacoin +11.83%
Unobtanium +10.75%

[redjedievolution]

the up trend is nuts! I think BigVern is pumping the coin. No 2 hottest coin on cryptsy ltc market now

somebody has ate the 160LTCS at 12 !!!!!!!! 

[bwowd]

the up trend is nuts! I think BigVern is pumping the coin. No 2 hottest coin on cryptsy ltc market now

somebody has ate the 160LTCS at 12 !!!!!!!! 

Thats fair pump?   
I'm afraid coin will falling again.. 

[redjedievolution]

In my opinion we will see 20-25 in next days and a fall again to maybe 6. After it, we will see again 11-12 and we stabilize there. I hope we'll not see again this "cryptsy wallet maintenance"

Cheers and enjoy the way, the real goal is at least 60 litoshi in the next months  

the up trend is nuts! I think BigVern is pumping the coin. No 2 hottest coin on cryptsy ltc market now

somebody has ate the 160LTCS at 12 !!!!!!!!  

Thats fair pump?  
I'm afraid coin will falling again..