Bitcoin Forum

Updates Summary Here- :

* Well amazingly,  so far no one has contested the fact that Quark is exceptional, or in the fact that it is the only major crypto not subject to the whims of mining monopoly.

* Decentralized consensus suggests i'm "trolling" the truth, i'm fine with that, best to start a discussion with the truth on your side.

*It has been suggested that I'm trying to "Pump" Quark, lets just address that , if i didn't sell when it was at its recent peak why would i be trying a cheap pump now? some Crypto are worth holding and adding too Quark is one of them.

* On page 2 i explained why monopolists can't short Quark or drive the price down as one can not sell something they don't own, unlike Precious Metals where a lot of the market does not take possession of the physical,  you can take ownership of Quark in about 6 minute from anywhere in the world.

* On page 2 Also i discussed fear of an attack by Government, individuals or Bank agents such as in-q-tel etc.

Still no one has contested the exceptional design of Quark and i get the feeling that the topic is uncomfortable to some monopolists, my apology for that.


Lets think about the Gravity of these statements i'm making:

When adults come to the crypto market, institutional investors , and when the light bulb finally switches on for them , (see Peter Schiff's begrudging statements recently) they will primarily be precious metals investors, because of their strong links to Austrian economic principals.

These people are going to try to gain as much education as possible before committing to an investment, and in part i'm here and happy to help as the fundamentals are with us on this one.

So in educating themselves so they can forward on educate others, do you think they are going to want to worry about a vector like "what kid(s) own which monopoly on what hardware?"

Or do you think they will want to invest in something that sticks more closely to the principals of cryptocurrency that being the free market and sound economic models?

Who wants to invest in something that was monopoly mined by maybe 10 kids with a new piece of hardware ?  (or for that matter any monopoly with hardware government agencies included)

Quark is free from that system, it is distributed all except the small EQ reward, when a buyer buys its simple they know the only way it can go down is if a seller sells.

I like those fundamentals for a Crypto currency, thats called the opposite of what Ripple done, its simplicity and safety.

And just think i'm contesting Quark is the only major with these sound fundamentals, and no one is saying i'm wrong ?



------------------------------------------------------->



The challenge is as follows :

I'm asking the smartest crypto minds to undertake a discussion regarding the state of crypto currency monopoly though the ability to control mining and thus control difficulty and effectively control prices.


Furthermore I state that Quark a crypto currency alternative in the top 15 of market cap is one of,  if not the only currency that cannot be subject to mining or price control and manipulation.

Not to be understated I'm asking anyone to come here and prove me wrong.

I Welcome Gavin Anderson or Vitality or any developer from any alternative crypto that generally stays true to the bitcoin protocol and the original designs and intentions of the original designers.

It should be furthermore a simple task to prove me wrong.

If Quark is not one of the only crypto that is not subject to possible and actually probable gross manipulation though control of mining and control of difficulty, if Quark is not the exception.


It should be easy to prove me wrong here in front of our peers and recorded for history.

According to a "Nash" type equilibrium a set of players would not use more than 51% of mining control to "attack" or "double spend" but in a rather more logical manner the participants would collude to their general benefits.

Which is the apparent long term direction or attempt at long term direction of the "crypto" market .

Most other participants are followers that will then generally move with this trend set by the monopoly sector.



if I'm correct , based on simple free market principles what is the best investment ?

In an entity that broadly can't be manipulated as I'm suggesting is Quark , or an entity that is subject to ongoing manipulation through mining issuance?

With one investment the capital investors has to guess what the mining monopoly will do next because price is linked not to a free market structure but to a monopoly of mining capital.

The other investment is based on crypto fundamentals such as price community , activitie , development and future wider macro economics.

So again which is the safer investment?

Let my education on this matter begin.

I will reserve this spot for crickets chirping or a tumble weed.

I'm Asking Satoshi himself to contribute.

In terms of market who controls mining controls the newly generated coins. And what about coins which are already in existence. If I am one of 2 richest litecoin adresses with ~10% of all litecoins in my wallet I'm able to set a price whatever I want from a price without my coins on market to almost zero without controling 50% or 75% of hashrate. THe same for Quark.
This actually happened in Quark since February. A bunch of richest addresses dumped 10M+ QRK and price plunged from 10k satoshis to 3500. If ti is not a price manipulation then I dunno what actually is.

Thanks for being the first to contribute, and congratulations.

Incorrect , for every seller there has to be a buyer and every buyer a seller .

The only way anyone could price manipulate is by being able to Deny the market access to the entity.

For example, if I can control 70% of the mining I can deny access to the market and my group can prop up a certain target price then control the market accordingly.

In contrast it's a contradiction in terms to say you can sell an entity to control it.

The problem of course is as every who understands crypto knows it's the years distribution combined with the mining monopoly.

Quark achieved it's distribution in a free market manner which all here can contest to.

So other than the 1 unit EQ how can there be possible long term manipulation a sell is not manipulation people can try to move the market but they only get so many shots at the game , as per free market .

Quark has no mining control you agree ?

Then moving forward it has no chance that any one entity can move the market.

Bottom line is QRK is a mined-out bagholder coin, period. A few people control the majority of the coins and a few other vocal people shill for it. Yes, its got services better than any other coin, yes its got Bill Still to make videos and you to blow your trumpet about it, yes its in a lameass video game redux--but the fact remains, its not really that special overall.

Whatever happened to your other 'amazing,' 'earth-shattering,' project, Nibble (or is it Nybble?)? Or the re-name on CAPs, those really went somewhere, huh? You're great at the hype and pump and dump, but that's about it. QRK has some traction, stop shilling and let it build. Get it back up to 11-12K satoshi (where a lot of people bought in) and I'll think QRK is special again. Alas, you can't, and no one wants to buy your coins to make it so.

The only reason you're here shilling for QRK is because the audience here has BTC to spend. There's no real-world traction for it as evidence by the long trailing sell off happening.

This isn't a censorship forum anyone is free to make alt related Topics and by your logic 99% here would be a shill, also history shows traders don't give a crap how fair a crypto is (see drk), as long as it's building infrastructure. It's usually the miners whining they didn't get free money

Well, I agree that to manipulate Quark one must use market methods (have more financial resourses) while in sha or scrypt coins manipulation theoretically could be done by some cartel of miners by non-market method.

Another argument. To have 75% scrypt hashrate one need to buy a ASICs from their manufacturers and that's a lot of money. To get 75% of QUark hashrate one need to just rent an ordinary CPU power, and that could be cheap. Having e.g. 100 BTC I can setup a pool where I will pay twice a market price for Quark hashes. Then I gather a thousand or so CPUs hashing under my control, make a 51% attack and totally reap Quark with market cap 50k bitcoins or so. And it's QUark distribution model which provide the coin with such a low hashrate.
Need to think about it...  :D

QRK has a market cap of $4,300,000...
In corporate terms this is a rounding error...
Anyone with $100-200K can just totally play with QRK price.

The entire Crypto Universe Cap of $7 billion...
Would be similar to an NYSE midcap stock no one here has heard of like NLY or FRC...
About the size of the 200th largest bank in the world.

Both BTC and QRK are already out-dated technology and have no future...
A Gen 2.0 or 3.0 Alt will blow by BTC sooner than anyone imagines... 12-24 months.

QRK is extremely fast and very very secure. It is the most convenient coin by far comparing to BTC or even LTC. The fact that so many coins are owned by 5-6 wallets is a kind of a problem, personally I do not understand why someone is keeping some 25 mln on one address. Maybe he has a hoarding syndrome ;)

I like the idea of fast mining and small almost microscopic inflation. I would not judge the Shaq-Fu, I will not be playing probably however some people see big potential in this coin. And do not forget that the younger generation will be adopting QRK through this game. Actually I have no idea why there are so many QRK haters. Yes it would put mining to history books as it is just madness, it consumes massive amounts of electricity so as long as we do not have access to free energy mining is hmm.... ecologically disputable.

Either way I will keep my few Quarks long and I do not care that I paid much higher than 10-11k satoshis for them. QRK is the community of the people who are devoted to this crypto and their actions sooner or later will bring positive results.

And yes , I think the price just around $0.02 per coin or some 3500 satoshis is ridiculus !! but it is great opportunity. So for all those reasons i think that every prudent crypto investor should have a few QRK.

Keep calm and continue buying Quark!

I don't think that someone is keeping 25 mln QRK on one address. It has already been shown that the "big wallets" belong to different exchanges like btc38 or bter.

http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/25rt89/52_of_quarks_belong_to_only_25_addresses/

I was just in the middle of saying that when you posted, so thank you and I second what you say!!

edit:
A round 25 mln figure with just six inputs and one output ?
Well.... if that's the case it's even better ;)

Not if the buyer and seller is the same person. Expounding on BugSpirit's post, the person would also need to have a viable equivalent of funding on the opposite end of the market (i.e. buys). Providing enough funding would essentially create a pressure that is the equivalent of a sold collar. Of course though, depending on the market cap, this could easily grow to unrealistic values (but theoretically any coin, or stock for that, is susceptible to this).

Thanks for the comments but unfortunately you just confirm the free market aspects at play while not addressing the prevalent mining monopolies both actual and possible.

And yes it's a big difference, you can have a Trillion paper dollars but you can't sell something you don't own.thus is crypto.

As for the price being high and price movement , welcome to the free market .

Your comment affirms more than rejects my claims .

Thanks for the contribution and think about this :


Quark is distributed.

Quark was distributed by cpu primarily possible some GPU went to zero upon which pure market forces took over.

One can mine 75% of the EQ reward but you can have literally all the fiat money on the earth but you can't mine s monopoly amount or control the price though mining.

If you want to move the market you have to first own Quark to sell it .

And that was the more pure original intention of crypto.

Ha we hear this argument all the time on crypto forums.

So much Trillions of fiat money etc , the problems of course with this argument is that we are not talking about fake Bank issued inflated money, we are talking about Crypto.

And you have to own Crypto to move it, or move the market.

One way Trillions of dollars of paper CAN have an impact is if it can be used in the paper accepted world to gain a monopoly on mining to then thus control a market , but Quark is outside that and thus not part of that control.

Which I can prove , hence this topic.

It is a very important discussion. Especially now when the price of QRK is so low so it is available cheap for the masses ;)

No Trolling:

This is such as a pathetic/lame attempt to gain interest for Quark.

That coin has been out forever, it's dead, it's not going anywhere...It offers absolutely nothing besides "ASIC Resistence"

Shit coins stay shit coins. :P

Polycoin is the one to rule them all.

One does not simply listen to a person with a -16 rating.

So you agree that Quark is the exception in the top 20 market cap ?

Thanks for the feedback you can have any opinion you like and troll as much as you want , this forum was built on trolling.

Quark is super undervalued.. the haters are the ones who began chasing it when it got hot and then try and shit on it saying it was "PRE MINED BRO!!!" which is total bullshit, it was mined over a short time but wasn't pre-mined at all.

And the same people will chase and praise it when it become hot again.

Kolin, I'm actually a supporter of Quark. But right now we are quite a weak and anyone could easily destroy Quark both with market manipulations and 51% mining attack and it will be cheap for them. Let's admit it and work this out. On the other hand Quark is the only coin I know made with use of market and macroeconomic theory and human experience in this field of knowledge. Quark is a quality work on the mistakes which appeared in bitcoin protocol and economics in recent 5 years. Since that, Quark has the best fundaentals among cryptocurrencies to day. Moreover, developers and community know that the way to success don't lay through painting doggies on cars but through real work like seeking pertnership with game developers. Only a few people in whole crypto world understand it (Charlie Shrem, Tony Gallippi to name a few).
What we see now is a wild market, when a really large money belong to those who just was in the right place in the right time. From time to time it happens in the real world, the great example is a 90s market reforms in Eastern Europe or Latin America. Huge fortunes fell into hands of yesterdays ordinary engineers and workers and many of them don't know what to do with them. Look at the hundreds of jackpot winners who lost everything in months and returned to their few-dollar-work. Money leave the hands of those who dont deserve them. We can see it in cryptos and Quark right now. People with millions of Quarks just see a decline in price and Doge or Dark hype and pump and decide to quit the market. They just don't understand what fell in their hands and don't know how to grow their fortune. Yeah better to join some hype sit and wait when someone took you to the moon where you will be R.I.C.H. For a pity on their way they are able to do much harm to efforts of those who actually trying to do something usefull.
Microeconomic theory proves that free-market equilibrium is Pareto-optimal (1st Welfare Theorem) but don't say when the equilibrium is reached. I believe that no faster than inflation hits 1-2% range what happens for bitcoin and similar coins in 10 years since the first block. Quark could do it much faster maybe in a year or two, when big wallets either lost their coins or prove they deserve them. All the mining issues will be solved in prices 20-50 times more than present which I consider not only possible but inevitable.

To sum up, Quark is not for those who seek a coin which allow looting itself by mining and ineffective distribution model, and not for those who scour a quick buck in a matter of weeks. These kind of people will try to crap it, cause they just don't see a sence in its existence. Quark is for those who are willing and able to work and understand how to move the community forward or at least trying to become such. For these folks Quark is the best platform for now.
That's what me, Kolin and others are trying to say, despite some controversions on a few technical issues.  ::)

FACTS:
Blackcoin is fully mined within the first week.
The author of Darkcoin insta-mined 30%-50% of existing coins within the first few minutes.
Darkcoin's so called DGW difficulty adjustment algorithm is intentionally set to increase difficulty slowly after the initial launch. The first 1000 blocks are generated within one hour, and each of which has a block reward of 500. Remember currently Darkcoin block interval is 150s and block reward is only 5.

Why people say Quark is a premined scam coin, while they give Blackcoin and Darkcoin so many credits?

IMO, most coins launched after last December are scam coins. Their authors created these coins for cheating people and making money.

Quark is one of pioneer CPU coins. It was so cheap before and thus was manipulated by some Chinese whales last December. Right now most speculators have left the market and price is stable. There is nothing wrong with Quark itself.

Well said.

I'll send a message to quarks developer on this, i think marketing wise quarks has been doing great, but it need some technical boost to make it complete.

Added some updates - i'll read and address feedback and questions soon -

yea this is wierdo...specially when black and dark coin was puuuuumped hard

Good point, I am also a Quark supporter and to me it´s refreshing to discuss issues rather than pretending that everything fine. It is neither with Quark nor with any other coin. This is still an evolving market and things are in experimental status. Having said this I personally believe that PoW will face some real issue as long as there are multipools. To make PoW work properly the coin needs to be valuable for the miners. But even if the value will rise which I expect to happen for many coins this won´t automatically lead to a stronger network as Multipools will constantly seek the strongest coins and dump them to pump another coin.

However, I don´t believe that multipools will eventually be the end of PoW, I rather believe that they exist at the current moment because there is a lot of competition about who will be number 2 in the crypto market. In my opinion it is very likely that the gap between frontrunners and copycoins will grow and with it the interest in multipools will be lower than now.

I think we should be open to discussions about how the Quark protocol can be changed to make it stronger and more efficient and we shouldn´t exclude major changes like switching over to PoS. However, if it is done it should be a decision of the community as a whole to make it transparent and fair for all stakeholders. This would be the demontration of a real community.

lets address this :

sorry for the bump i know this is embarrassing for some so they'd much rather it sink to obscurity, because what this topic is effectively saying is that all of the crypto market is manipulated on the mining side to a large degree.

some people might take that for granted, some people might be fine with it, but as stated Crypto is marketing itself as the free market money option, yet there are glaring mining monopolies the only thing stopping the market from imploding and evolving on that basis is a general lack of education.

lets talk about 51% attack FUD - :

checkpoints are the bane of a monopolists existence - this is why in the early days they tried to label checkpoints as "centralization" ha ha , that's right have you ever met that one cult religious weirdo that takes all the actions he preaches against then calls others "sinners".

it kind of like that but without the religion -

Checkpoints just say what chain the community agrees is the block-chain in some far out anarchist type thinking the fake anarchist (who is really a monopoly capitalist)  says that's somehow "centralizing".

if community is "centralizing"  then correct.

With distributed checkpoints, at best an attacker which will likely be one of these monopolists (either government or bank agency) can disrupt our network , in the same way that a DDoS did or has not killed any company in the history of the Internet is in the same way that an attack on a chain with distributed checkpoints  can not hurt a Crypto.

If your transaction is in the chain with the checkpoints, the one we all agree is the chain, then there is 0% chance of loss.

so to those concerned in the community about this fear , please run a checkpoint , there is absolute freedom to do so - we have our core checkpoints and anyone can run one.

I'd be happy to make a further appeal to any of the veterans of Check-pointing and blockchain security  i.e Balthazar < (previous incarnation here) and SunnyKing < (of Prime and Peer fame) to come check out code and test our network for security.

But i can say when our Developers put in place the checkpointing ( credit to Shake on this one) they were able to contact and discuss the situation with SunnyKing.

Summary so what's the attack threat all about ?

its called :

Problem Reaction Solution

its a funny old game, create a problem that does not exist (The Attack) wait for the reaction or ask for a reaction (Fear of an Attack)  present a solution that is to your benefit. (monopoly)

but we will talk about that more later.

I agree with some of what is said - but of course not all -

When we step away from Problem reaction solution, what are we left with?

I'm happy to have the discussion, i welcome it, i started this whole topic to have a discussion.

PoW is a very ingenious design i've spoken about it many times, also another kind of veteran here "AnonyMint" extended a fairly exhaustive study into random way in which the PoW game is won.

I looked at that various study and info then looked at it from a sociological and economic point of view and well, guess what, he's right.

The PoW principal was more than likely the accumulation of many minds of the contributers of the NSA white paper (refer to the white paper) (or maybe just one of those light-bulb moments by a single person)

So we of course have to be careful when we look at different emission options , and i believe the evidence  thus far does not even come close to supporting alternatives.


the Crypto market moves like any free market in little frequency cycles that shift, so Monopoly tends to stand out like a sore thumb to those that can see the frequencies and cycles.

Even though Bicoin has a full mining monopoly and is always destined to have a dropping supply at maturity, even with those flaws, its PoW shines though as the best system, that gives the best chance to distribute units in a random manner, and stay true to what some might call an "energy equilibrium."


Monopolists can not drive the direction of a currency that is not subject to the monopoly:

lets explore that, they can design a "feature" that is touted as a "benefit" and  then they can start that blockchain and have a total monopoly over the largest % of units being released .

of course in this way they can "bid up" the price without any risk of even their capital for two reasons:

1. they are controlling the emission, therefore they simply calculate what is outside their control % wise and if every single unit of that was sold that is their total risk.

2. By spamming or marketing the "feature" and the price rise by "bidding up" many of the followers, (the reason most good traders make money) will follow along and not sell.

however :

if a currency is already distributed the only possible way to "short" or Bid it down is to buy privately off an exchange and try to sell on a popular exchange, but that is a very flawed system because after a small time the sellers that are selling privately will start to buy back from the exchange and ask for a higher price privately.

you can't sell something you don't have.

the only reason Silver can be naked shorted is because most of the market do not take ownership of the physical asset - to take ownership of Quark it takes about 6 minutes from anywhere in the world. (probably 12 to account from off an exchange )

so you see Crypto will never have the naked short problem that Precious metals have - (all things being equal)

Crypto will move in natural cycles.  

Yes, polycoin, a second generation crypto in may 2014.