Cryptonote coins

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
OK, so we all love our CPU farms and love cryptonote because it's viable when BTC is at a certain place and the altcoin market is active. However it's worth taking a small community look on what all these fake/shit/clones are actually doing - and if they actually have some cool tech in what they claim.

Or if we just like to hear our delta fans sing the song of the people under cpu utilization - that's fine too.

If we have a finite way to waste electricity, may as well bet on the proper horse or a horse that will at least get to the end of the race without falling over.

Here is what I have gathered so far.
  • XMR, most mature coin that was also a clone of a project. Huge dev group, and have their own roadmap and big plans. However mining at this point is pointless due to botnets mining on private pools.
  • KRB, also another fork - but not a monero fork. Have a mobile wallet, clean desktop gui, figured out the blocksynchronization issue by using remote deamons (secondary use for pools basically, and you get a broker fee by people using your synced daemon), also has protection against pulse mining due to what I believe is a global PPLNS window.
  • TRTL, claims a lot of things - but so far I just see them pulling code left and right from other projects. They also plan to implement a remote deamon approach for avoiding block sync times, but their approach is more of a mesh network and using leftover nonce bits to store 'mini' chains that are only relevant to where you are going to insert your transaction. It's a bold claim that they can do this, and with KRB having a working model (not distributed) not sure what the value is.
  • ITNS, also plans to use the leftover nonce bits, but for storing VPN traffic / keys. Their idea is to some how use that leftover space to either route traffic through their own version of a mesh nework between deamons, and you gain money by brokering web traffic by your running deamon. It's a cool idea, but again TOR probably does this better already.
  • Sumo, seems like another fork but havent actually read what they claim.
  • AEON, never really spent time on it, mostly because i'm too lazy to have to manually switch my miners to cryptonote-lite.
  • Electroneum, fork but targets the mobile market for a mobile wallet and mining platform - yet nicehash is still mining the heck out of it.
I'm a developer by day, so I usually like to peak into each coins subreddit / discord / forum and get a feel for if there is actual development work going on. It wouldn't be hard to bamboozel a community by making another forknote coin, fork off a branch long long ago. And slowly merge commits in no particular order to bring it up to date with the current master branch of forknote. This would create a guice of actual work being done, but in reality no work is actually being done apart from cherry picking commits.

If anyone else has taken a look at the actual value added by all of these coins that more or less forked from the same coin, curious what your thoughts are on which of these is actually doing cool stuff with the tech they have available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joel

MiniKnight

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2012
3,072
973
113
NYC
Monero is used in the dark places.

Turtle is garbage. I'm convinced now.

ITNS i'm with you. I don't get why I'd want to run this. It's like taking a bottle and calling it blockchain bottle.

Sumo for people to mine and make money, but it's come down to earth.

Aeon lightweight Monero. Works on more devices. I like it because with 1MB it means botnets can mine it but it also makes it more secure since more devices can run and it's more CPU than GPU.

Electroneum I don't get why I'd want to mine on my phone. Lowering battery life? This project is way better than Turtle and ITNS at least.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
Most coins claim to be doing special. Most are not. But they have to pretend they are. Have a roadmap, claim to have a target market, solve some problem, whatever. Vast majority are me-too in sheep's clothing.

Coins are valued based on hype. Every once in a while one of them, the hype catches on. For those few *actually* doing something special *and* the hype catches on, can become a big deal.

Ultimately, for the clones, there is some value in the transaction fees being low, provided that there is sufficient volume, and acceptance on multiple exchanges. In my view, that's why ripple has some value -- fast transactions, low fees, acceptance and high volume on many exchanges.

I'm not aware of any cryptonote forks having these benefits. Basically, people on cryptopia and a handful of other exchanges are speculating on the coins, and that makes mining profitable. That's where their value starts and ends. One or two may grow beyond that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joel

polyfractal

Member
Apr 6, 2016
33
27
18
Expanding on a few:

Sumo.
Their gimmick is a high mixin requirement (min 12 iirc) to ensure maximal privacy. Other cryptonotes only default to 3. Was forked after Monero's privacy bug was patched, so the blockchain is "clean" if that's something you care about. IIRC the monero GUI wallet was forked from Sumo's because it was better. Otherwise just a vanilla fork from my understanding

Alloy / Bitcoal / Fonero / Masari
Nothing, as far as I can tell. Complete clones

DERO
I'm sorta keeping an eye on this one, it seems to have legit developer activity. It's a fork of Monero with the intention to add smart contracts, in a way that preserves privacy of those participating in the contract. Plans to implement their own VM similar to EVM.

What caught my eye is that they are reimplementing all of it in golang. Which is awesome, because the original cryptonote C++ code is hot garbage. I've tried to work through it on occasion to grok the block headers and it's all a mess. Ditto to the abomination that is the Stratum protocol. Would be refreshing to get some new code blood in the ecosystem... too many projects just fork and tweak everything (pools, miners, coins, etc).

That said I'm not crazy about DERO or anything, but it at least seems to be doing new things.
 

spfoo

Member
May 23, 2017
102
16
18
I was curious about all these variations of Cryptonight coins so I went and actually joined a project for a while. It was a real eye-opener on what a large part of these so called crypto projects are in reality. That particular project had a main dev - wannabe director/manager or something, aspirations depended mostly on the weather I think - and one developer putting in an hour or 2 every now and then. This was what was called "the dev team". The main dev had absolutely zero experience in IT project management or any other management level background - and let's not even get into talking about the business side to keep some sanity. The followers were like a group of something close to a religion. On the message boards you would read repeatedly words like: "believe", "hope", "trust", "community" etc. Like a group of monks chanting. Yet the project had some nice things developed - or copied. But basically it was a one-man show. Later I looked into some others and I found very similar patterns. I think this explains why there are over 1500 coins out there...
 

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
I was curious about all these variations of Cryptonight coins so I went and actually joined a project for a while. It was a real eye-opener on what a large part of these so called crypto projects are in reality. That particular project had a main dev - wannabe director/manager or something, aspirations depended mostly on the weather I think - and one developer putting in an hour or 2 every now and then. This was what was called "the dev team". The main dev had absolutely zero experience in IT project management or any other management level background - and let's not even get into talking about the business side to keep some sanity. The followers were like a group of something close to a religion. On the message boards you would read repeatedly words like: "believe", "hope", "trust", "community" etc. Like a group of monks chanting. Yet the project had some nice things developed - or copied. But basically it was a one-man show. Later I looked into some others and I found very similar patterns. I think this explains why there are over 1500 coins out there...
I'm in the same boat, I am quite active on the discord for Turtle. And I keep trying to get people interested in projects, or working on things together. But so far apart from node.js copy/paste from pool owners that can follow a github readme... There are only maybe a few 3rd party devs outside of the core group that are contributing to the main deamon / wallet code. And even then I don't understand how any of the code is being written when said "head" devs are posting messages into discord almost every hour of the day - it's almost like there is account sharing going on. No sane developer can multitask that good.

What you actually described sounds like most common day startups (social network clones, value added clones, food deliver clones). Smart tech dude with a huge ego, sells idea, builds hype, under delivers on a product that was oversold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: polyfractal

Titan

New Member
Jan 14, 2018
12
2
3
34
Turtle is still better than alot of shjt coins. Mine and sell in day gives you more profit than XMR, ETN or Sumo.
For new coin, you have to accept it's a gamble. to the moon or nothing.
 

spfoo

Member
May 23, 2017
102
16
18
Looks like it's going towards nothing - sell side at 0.00000002 BTC is getting bigger and bigger.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
Looks like it's going towards nothing - sell side at 0.00000002 BTC is getting bigger and bigger.
Word is that someone did a 51% attack and created a fork that really screwed up the network.

This is trivial to accomplish for any cryptonote coin with < 1MH/s, more expensive but still possible for coins with maybe 10mh/s. Given the availability and cost of cryptonote hash rental, I wouldn't put much faith in a coin with less than 100mh/s of network hash power. Right now that means electroneum and monero.

Also worth keeping in mind is the difference between "cost" and "commitment". It may 'cost' a lot to 3x the total network size of a 10mh/s coin for any length of time, but it doesn't take much commitment. If the coin as a whole crashes and burns, you can move your hash power to another coin (if you own it), or stop renting it (if you're renting hash power). On the other hand, for a coin with 300 mh/s like electroneum, you can't simply rent 1gh/s to attack the network. And if you do buy enough hardware to perform a 1gh/s attack long enough to destabilize the network, there isn't anything else you can mine profitably with that 1gh/s if you kill off a 300mh/s coin network. So that's a rather large commitment to make, where if you use that hardware to destroy the network, you make your investment a total loss in a hurry.

From that point of view, this really creates a "tournament style market" for cryptocurrencies. Meaning, the top 2 or 3 coins that can be mined with a common set of hardware, should remain relatively secure. The next few coins may or may not remain stable. And anything beyond the top 10 is extremely risky.

By "common hardware", for cryptonote coins, that means CPUs and some GPUs like vega. Add up all the hashpower applied to CPUs and cryptonote-efficient-gpus, and if your coin has less than 10% of that hash power, it is always in danger of being attacked. Take all the sha256 miners hash power, and if your sha256 coin has less than 10% of that hash power, it is always in danger of being attacked. And so on.

To "3x attack" a 10% coin, would require you have 30% of the total hashpower available for that type of hardware. And if you do, and you kill a coin with 10% hash power, there are limited places for you to send your hashpower afterwards. So you shoot yourself in the foot if you do attack a coin of that size or larger. On the other hand, if you attack a coin with 1% hash power, you only need to have 3% of the total. And after you kill the coin, just direct your 3% hash power to a 10% coin and call it business as usual.

Inherently, this limits the number of stable currencies that can exist. If you want to start a new currency, you want to make sure the network remains stable over time. In that case, you would want to create a hashing algorithm that is very efficient on hardware that is not yet commonly used for mining, and very inefficient on hardware that is already commonly used for mining.

Monero itself is a good example there -- unprofitable to mine on the currently-existing GPUs, unreasonable to mine on ASICs, and very efficient on CPUs.

Burstcoin has it's own problems, but, it is best to mine with hard drives, which is a novel solution. It is not reasonable to mine with anything other than stored hashes.

Ethereum + Zcash are somewhat interchangable in terms of hardware, but not 100% -- some GPUs are more profitable on Ethereum, and others more profitable on Zcash. Even without that, if the two coins each had more than a 10% share of GPU hashing power, both would be reasonably secure. But if you have a coin that's 1/10th the size of either of these, that is profitable on the same types of hardware -- watch out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patrick

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
This isn't entirely true that network hash pulsing will destabilize the coin, and the only way to solve it is to have lots of committed network hash. There are code changes that can be done to the network to help save lower hashrate coins. It just makes newcomers get less payouts until they are "committed" which sucks for on-boarding miners.

KRB implemented an algorithm to prevent pulse mining (I think they were the first to get it working actually), it favors those who have more commitment more or less. Making pulse mining very expensive as you need more than 3 hours burst of mining to do any damage.

This same algorithm is freely available to fork into any other bytecoin fork. I think Zcash also has this now too.

https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin/issues/202
 
Last edited:

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
This isn't entirely true that network hash pulsing will destabilize the coin, and the only way to solve it is to have lots of committed network hash. There are code changes that can be done to the network to help save lower hashrate coins. It just makes newcomers get less payouts until they are "committed" which sucks for on-boarding miners.

KRB implemented an algorithm to prevent pulse mining (I think they were the first to get it working actually), it favors those who have more commitment more or less. Making pulse mining very expensive as you need more than 3 hours burst of mining to do any damage.

This same algorithm is freely available to fork into any other bytecoin fork. I think Zcash also has this now too.

How to protect blockchain from *time-warp* attacks? · Issue #202 · amjuarez/bytecoin · GitHub
There are different levels of destabilization.

One method to destabilize a coin is to go back in time, say, 200 blocks, and start solving blocks from that point forwards. You can do several things at once here.

First, you can obviously mine all the intermediary blocks. If the coin is still worth something after you've pulled this off, you can get a lot of cheap coins by arbitrarily lowering the difficulty while mining a large number of blocks.

Secondly, if you mine enough blocks with enough difficulty, you can orphan a long chain of blocks. Say you have 10 megahash, and the network is 1 megahash.

You go back in time 9 days, and start mining. You start mining 777 billion hashes prior to the current block of the network (9 days times 1 megahash times 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds). At 10 megahash/s, in 2 days, you will have computed 1.7 trillion hashes after your start point, while the real network will now be at around 864 billion hashes beyond your start point.

If your solve luck is roughly the same as the network as a whole, you are now 10 days ahead of the real network in terms of cumulative difficulty. If you now submit all your blocks to the network at once, your chain will have the greater cumulative difficulty, and most daemons will fork to your version.

In addition to now having mined many blocks at an arbitrarily low difficulty, you also wipe out the transaction history for the 10 days prior. You can selectively include some of those transactions and not others. This can throw the entire coin into chaos. Exchanges in particular would be hit hard by this, as the blockchain may have effectively "refunded" many users deposits and withdrawls. Send TRTL to exchange, sell it for bitcoin, withdraw bitcoin. Now after the attack, the blockchain may reflect that you never sent that TRTL to the exchange at all. It is now in your wallet again, and you also keep the bitcoin you received.

A simple adjustment to the difficulty algorithm cannot solve this problem. For a coin with a network hash rate of 1 mh/s, erasing 10 days of transaction history (possibly while keeping some transactions and not others), would cost about $20k at today's prices. (the above example of hashing 10mh/s for 2 days would cost twice that much). If the coin was still worth anything afterwards, you can recoup the cost of the attack by selling the coins you mined in your forked chain.

$20k to completely destroy an upstart cryptocurrency seems like a cheap investment if you own a lot of different competing coins.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
Also, the cost may be far less. To cause serious problems with the coin, you don't need to fork 10 days in the past. From an exchange's point of view, rolling back confirmed deposit transactions would be sufficient for the exchange to lock deposits and withdrawls until the situation could be sorted out (if it could be sorted out at all). To cause this to happen would require a fork no longer than 1 day, and far less may still cause serious problems.

Starting back 10 hours and building from there, if you have 10x the network hash rate, you could have the longer chain within 1-2 hours.

1mh/s on nicehash is less than 0.2 btc per day. So 10mh/s for 1/10th of a day would be 0.2btc or less. Even with 200% block effort (really poor pool luck) you should be able to roll back 12 hours of transactions for less than $2,000.

If the coin is still worth anything after this attack, the attack can be profitable simply by allowing you to get exchange credit for a large deposit, and then perform this attack to "refund" your deposit. Alternately, $2000 is cheap enough that someone may perform this attack "just for fun".

If you can destroy a coin for $2,000, I have a hard time believing the coin can be trusted in any way, shape, or form.

To recover from an attack like that, you would need to create a hard fork that manually excluded the malicious chain and reinstated the previous one. Amd you would need to get the entire network to agree to use this hard fork. In the meantime, the network would be unusable, waiting for the community to implement the hard fork.

Even if the network did recover, someone could attack the network over and over with a shorter rollback. I.E. send coins to an exchange, note what the block height is for your transaction, and start building your fork from the prior block. Wait for the exchange to confirm your deposit, sell the coins, withdraw BTC. Once you've received the BTC, submit your forked chain to refund your exchange deposit.

This could all take less than 2 hours in between deposit and withdrawl, so you only need to fork the chain 2 hours back. Rent 10 megahash for 15 minutes (1/100th of 1 day), and that should be enough to revert your transaction and get your new fork accepted by the network.

Right now, that scale of attack would cost 0.02 BTC or less. If the only solution every time this happens, is to create a manual hard fork to reinstate the correct chain, the coin will be dead in no time. 0.02 BTC is only $250. What is the cost of getting an entire network to agree on implementing a hard fork?

Alternately, everyone could require an arbitrarily large number of confirmations before crediting a transaction. For a 1mh/s coin, I would propose that an appropriate confirmation delay would be 1 month. To roll back a confirmed transaction would then require 6 BTC of hashpower rental, roughly $70,000.

In this case the cure would be as bad as the disease. Who would use a coin that had a 30 day transfer delay? And should anyone use a coin where a transaction can be rolled back for $250?

To me, the answer to both questions is a clear "NO".
 

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
What you seem to be describing is a time warp attack, but this is also dependent on average block time. There is no way it would be this cheap to cause what you are describing on anything that forked in the last year. Since everyone is targeting fast moving blocks. But this is inherit to how BTC was found, and that's miners set their timestamps and can choose what block order to solve. Such safe guards exists that don't allow you to be N number of blocks ahead of the median.

If you get that far ahead of the chain, you yourself end up with orphaned blocks. Which seems why these pulse attacks are short lived, anything after a certain threshold ends up orphaned on your private pool as the network doesn't agree/too far behind.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
What you seem to be describing is a time warp attack, but this is also dependent on average block time. There is no way it would be this cheap to cause what you are describing on anything that forked in the last year. Since everyone is targeting fast moving blocks. But this is inherit to how BTC was found, and that's miners set their timestamps and can choose what block order to solve. Such safe guards exists that don't allow you to be N number of blocks ahead of the median.

If you get that far ahead of the chain, you yourself end up with orphaned blocks. Which seems why these pulse attacks are short lived, anything after a certain threshold ends up orphaned on your private pool as the network doesn't agree/too far behind.
The cost of forking the chain really depends upon the network hash rate and how far back you want to roll back the chain. A coin with low network hash rate, it is cheap to roll back the chain.

Spaeking of Bitcoin, they changed from "longest chain" to "highest cumulative difficulty" to determine which chain is valid. Reason being, if you recalculate the entire chain from the start of time, you can calculate it based on difficulty = 1, and easily generate a very long blockchain. Using strictly "most height" to determine validity, it is cheap to orphan the entire chain from the start of time. Using "cumulative difficulty" instead, your "long chain" would not have sufficient difficulty, and could not orphan the real chain.

As to protecting against the attack, the only thing I can think of, would be if a daemon will not allow orphaning more than X blocks. And make X smaller than the default confirmations required. This way, any network nodes that are up to date cannot be rolled back far enough to threaten the ledger.
 

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
The cost of forking the chain really depends upon the network hash rate and how far back you want to roll back the chain. A coin with low network hash rate, it is cheap to roll back the chain.

Spaeking of Bitcoin, they changed from "longest chain" to "highest cumulative difficulty" to determine which chain is valid. Reason being, if you recalculate the entire chain from the start of time, you can calculate it based on difficulty = 1, and easily generate a very long blockchain. Using strictly "most height" to determine validity, it is cheap to orphan the entire chain from the start of time. Using "cumulative difficulty" instead, your "long chain" would not have sufficient difficulty, and could not orphan the real chain.

As to protecting against the attack, the only thing I can think of, would be if a daemon will not allow orphaning more than X blocks. And make X smaller than the default confirmations required. This way, any network nodes that are up to date cannot be rolled back far enough to threaten the ledger.
I think for cryptonote coins this is part of the design. A single pool could do a burst submissions of shares into the network in a short period of time, but the verification of these blocks needs to be agreed upon by the other pools in the network.

I'm not sure of the quorum requirement - but wouldn't attackers need to host multiple daemons, spoof the daemons to be each others peers, and even then each daemon would still have to submit to the main network anyway and go through block confirmations / maturity.

The attack vector you speak of with low network hash seems to be a two part attack. Gain and control more daemon nodes, and spread your hash injection into them to have both ownership of quorum and hash rate. I don't think what you described will crash a coin, since you are pumping a coin with 10MHs, it's still at the mercy of 1MHs of validating and accepting the blocks you found. Part of why I think Monero doesn't allow you to be more than 24 blocks ahead of the moving average.

Since a lot of these forkcoins bootstrap the daemon clients with masternodes, you could mitigate this attack by having provisions in place to scale more masternodes to maintain some effort of fork protection.

All that can be seen so far with these drive by hash attacks is that difficulty sky rockets. And normal miners get no block reward for 1 week. Miners leave the network which leads to a never ending recovery cycle since you need more miners to recover from the sudden difficulty increase. And you end up having to pay nicehash to also fix your coin.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
Also, orphaning the real chain is a different attack than trying to mine more profitably. Profitable mining / difficulty manipulation has varying levels of protection in different coins. Whether or not a coin can be manipulated for profitable mining is not make-or-break for the coin. Being able to roll back large portions of the chain is. So best to look at either issue separately.
 

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
I think nicehash could be evil in both ruining coins, and requiring coin devs to then pay them to fix it.

Hash attack messes up difficulty, miners leave, you'd need to pay for hash injection to fix it at that point.
 

funkywizard

mmm.... bandwidth.
Jan 15, 2017
848
402
63
USA
ioflood.com
I think for cryptonote coins this is part of the design. A single pool could do a burst submissions of shares into the network in a short period of time, but the verification of these blocks needs to be agreed upon by the other pools in the network.

I'm not sure of the quorum requirement - but wouldn't attackers need to host multiple daemons, spoof the daemons to be each others peers, and even then each daemon would still have to submit to the main network anyway and go through block confirmations / maturity.

The attack vector you speak of with low network hash seems to be a two part attack. Gain and control more daemon nodes, and spread your hash injection into them to have both ownership of quorum and hash rate. I don't think what you described will crash a coin, since you are pumping a coin with 10MHs, it's still at the mercy of 1MHs of validating and accepting the blocks you found. Part of why I think Monero doesn't allow you to be more than 24 blocks ahead of the moving average.

Since a lot of these forkcoins bootstrap the daemon clients with masternodes, you could mitigate this attack by having provisions in place to scale more masternodes to maintain some effort of fork protection.

All that can be seen so far with these drive by hash attacks is that difficulty sky rockets. And normal miners get no block reward for 1 week. Miners leave the network which leads to a never ending recovery cycle since you need more miners to recover from the sudden difficulty increase. And you end up having to pay nicehash to also fix your coin.
As far as confirmations, submitting multiple valid blocks to the network (lets assume no crazy orphaning in this case), the other daemons will validate them so long as you meet the requirements of the network. It is the blocks themselves that confirm the earlier blocks, so if you have a large number of valid blocks, they will be accepted by the network. No need to gain a majority of nodes accepting your blocks instead of someone else's.

For massive orphaning, it depends on the coin. If they have some type of rollback protection (i.e. a node won't accept a chain that orphans too many blocks in the currently-known chain), then whether or not the whole network can be crashed depends upon the definition of "too many". I.E. if a node will accept a valid alternative chain up to 100 blocks behind, whereas a transaction is considered confirmed after 20 blocks, this provides a window of opportunity to roll back transactions. If those numbers are reversed, then you won't be able to roll back confirmed transactions. I haven't looked closely into this. It probably varies by coin, depending on the values used for those two things.
 

Howard2018

New Member
Feb 20, 2018
3
0
1
89
I joined STH just so I could shine a little light on TurtleCoin. The lead dev used to be very active on Discord. He gets high or drunk in the evenings and claims to be over 70. He said that he is part of the Goon Squad in a video game called Eve and that Goon Waffe the leader of the goon squad used to be in Turtle Coin Discord.

This group of people from Eve online are known for developing elaborate schemes to steal money, time and resources from people. When Turtle was originally launched the only people who knew about it were people trolling on 4chan and the lead devs close friends, the goonsquad. It's kind of silly to think a group of video gamers would try to scam people in the business world, but since the whole dev team is hiding behind anonymity it is hard to put any credibility into this coin.
 

onsit

Member
Jan 5, 2018
98
26
18
33
I joined STH just so I could shine a little light on TurtleCoin. The lead dev used to be very active on Discord. He gets high or drunk in the evenings and claims to be over 70. He said that he is part of the Goon Squad in a video game called Eve and that Goon Waffe the leader of the goon squad used to be in Turtle Coin Discord.

This group of people from Eve online are known for developing elaborate schemes to steal money, time and resources from people. When Turtle was originally launched the only people who knew about it were people trolling on 4chan and the lead devs close friends, the goonsquad. It's kind of silly to think a group of video gamers would try to scam people in the business world, but since the whole dev team is hiding behind anonymity it is hard to put any credibility into this coin.
This is the first i'm hearing about this being related to Goon Waffe, and I used to be on comms with people like HK and Dropbears.