This is not decided. If you followed this thread you will see that are diffrrent opinion in the community and we should prepare well if we decide to go this way. Just my opinion.

Maybe, and PoS has certainly its issues, but I am pretty sure that most of its current problems can be addressed in later versions. Also my main argument wasn´t that PoS is good but rather that PoW provides incentives to centralization as well as you can see from the hash monopolies of many pools in different PoW communities.

What tech could be used to do that? Could the paperwallet generator on Github be used? Sorry for asking, it´s just that I am not a techie.

I am agnostic when it comes down to the question PoW or PoS but it seems to me that in both cases there are incentives to centralization. In case of PoW people start minung on pools where the biggest is usually the most efficient.

I also must say that the whole discussion looks pretty childish to me. Bashing from both sides and everybody knows better than the rest. This are the moments when I see why crypto isn't attracting more people. It's a real shame.

The Quark mobile Wallet went from Beta to Stable on Play Store. With the app is simply awesome and you can use it to pass Quarks within seconds. Wait for the ka-ching

This is the announcement on Youtube, feel free to upvote if you like it.

1. (Quark) [www.qrk.cc] {cPoW}
2. Yes, would be definitely cool
3. Nah

Are there any pocket paper wallet generator. Some time ago I stumbled upon Zak Kembles DIY wristwatch project and wondered if it was possible to integrate a paper wallet generator into a wrist watch. Zaks watch has the advantage that it is in some way a smartwatch but it isn´t online like the common mobile wearables. I mailed him as a representant of the Quark community and never received an answer - he was probably not interested or didn´t understand what I was talking about - but I think this sort of devices could really push crypto usage and the use of paper wallets which would make the use of crypto way more secure (given that huge amounts of crypto are stored on exchanges).

What do you think? Do you find the idea of a pocket pwg senseful or would you find it superfluous (Zaks watch is interesting even without pwg, so check it out

Someone already mailed me this: http://www.coindesk.com/mycelium-announces-entropy-offline-usb-paper-wallet-creator/

Not with display, but certainly a good approach.

I learned about the "LaRouche movement" when I was living in Dresden. The BüSo is his party in Germany. They are like a sect that will die when LaRouche and his wife resign.

They are in my opinion nuts and I wouldn´t give sh** on what they say. I once spoke with one of their followers at their booth in the citycenter. They were promoting one of the big-promise-project LaRouche talked about (I think they modified it now, but still the same nonsense), the Eurasian bridge, a project where they wanted to invest billions over billiosn to build high speed tracks from Vladivostok till Lisboa. When I asked how they want to pay for it, she said "We will print the money"

Also have a really simplistic approach to reality. To me LaRouche is a boulevard politian and Guru that makes money by selling endtime scenarios (and sometimes that sells like hit cake).

But yeah, make up your own mind.

The statement is wrong and demonstrates ignorance with regard to crypto distribution schemes:

People argue that the main part of Quark is already distributed and they are right in some way: If you started mining directly after release you had a huge advantage over a person who starts mining now. Is that unfair? Maybe. However, this problem will always exist. In fact, it exists with Bitcoin and will exist with every other cryptocurrency. You should realize that the people who are mining now are avant-garde and a tiny percentage of the population we expect to adopt crypto - once the mainstream adopts crypto every PoW coin that exists today will be sort of "distributed" with only small chances to mine a stake.

And no, Quark isn´t mined 99,999% because you can´t apply disitrbution percentage if there is no final distribution. You can only apply this argument only if you set a final distribution set as in most PoW coins. Bitcoin's final distribution ends in 2140 but Quark will be distributed afterwards.

However, just for a moment let´s assume that Quark´s distribution would end in the same year where Bitcoin´s final coin is distributed. You´ll find out that currently ~ 60.5% of all BTC are already distributed and only slightly more Quark (65.2%)

Bitcoins total: 21,000,000
Bitcoins already distributed: 12,715,024
Bitcoins distributed in 2140: 21,000,000
percentage distributed: 60.5%

Quark total: ∞
Quarks already distributed: 247,813,937
Quarks distributed in 2140: 380,113,937
percentage distributed (calculated for 2140): 65.2%

Do your own math and you will find out there are many other coins with a "worse" distribution scheme. Anyway the debates we have now will be irrelevant in the future because with regard to future miners all current coins can be considered 99% or even 100% distributed. It simply doesn´t matter. It only matters if you are miner who missed the start of a coin (of any coin) and this argument isn´t really convincing to me.

Habe den Artikel gerade gelinkt bekommen. Da haben sich ja ein A**** und ein Eimer gefunden

I don´t mind people disagreeing with the attempt to go for a quick decrease of inflation and I don´t see why it shouldn´t be done in a year or even more instead of 6 months. Fact is that even if it would be 10 years then the main criticism that has been brought to Quark would still apply to every clone and every other crypto: given the fact that crypto is still far away from mainstream every launch gives huge advantages to current miners.
That´s why I think it is not really intelligent to talk about a "badly executed" idea. What matters is if you can get enough creative and powerful people behind you to get your idea going. Every Alt has compared to Bitcoin these problem as it has a good headstart but as long as people are motivated I don´t see why any project with some dozens of supporters can´t be successful in the end.

Good luck to your project anyway!

I don´t mind people posting that Quark is dead. Bad news is good news - people keep telling that since January and no, it´s still not dead, particularly the community.

I understood that people complained about the "Quark premine scam". It was false from the very beginning and a bad observation of a real problem that is false market cap assumptions: Quark bumped to the top 5 coins because it was distributing quicker than other coins and that´s why people would call it premine. This way people believed it was more valuable and there went the snowball effect. It wasn´t a scam though. I believe that few people earned money from the pump, but then I find it ridiculous to blame people for pumping as this is the main activity of 90% of all people in Altcoin. I hate it as well, but it´s a fact and the people who earn from this are usually not miners but traders who didn´t contribute to the currency in any way.

People keep repeating shit (especially speculators) and some people even thought it was true and repeated it as well over and over again but Quark was never premined, it was only one of the first coins with a quick distribution scheme. In some sense it is funny that Quark is still getting this kind of shit storms (or rather shit breeze) while other coins like Darkcoinwere actually premining and distributing in a way quicker manner.

I think Quark was told to be dead over and over again and it´s true that this scares off people, but I don´t see why it shouldn´t recover.

Btw. Kolin is not Quark, he is neither the developer nor an official spokesperson. Also, he never killed anybody as was told be the OP. I also think that this talking about "NXT sockpuppets" needs to stop. It feels like reading conspiracy theories.

Just shortly because I lack time (traveling this weekend, weehee)

@cryptohunter

I didn´t think of IPO or sold for Quark only. Imho that´s not necessary. If the coin is premined it shouldn´t be given out just like that but dedicated to specific activities. This is the only valid and acceptable way to do premine. It would finally be a reward not only for keeping the network up but also for keeping the community developing. Both are important and I don´t see that even one coin did this kind of "premine".

With regard to the superblocks, please comment on the idea I am going to write down below.

@orm

Ah, damn, yeah, forgot it is you
@1 I mentioned Bittrex because it will be easy to get there and many traders use it. No matter where the coin is: people will dump. I see that happen on every exchange. We should be agnostic here. Would people invest? I don´t see why they won´t if both are distinguishable and if it is not necessary forver.

Also, we could integrate the superblock idea with the companion coin: The coin could run for 3 years and then the "experimental coins" are integrated in the Quark blockchain as superblock (or differently: people who hold the experimental coin will receive shares of the superblock. Idk...maybe just a thought. Need to think about it again.

@2 The perspective is a growing community and a stable hashrate imho. This is more valuable than anything else.

@3 Not sure if that would be too complicated?

@Distribution

Basically my idea was that it is distributed via mining but that you can ALSO receive coin for being an active member of the community. I believe the problem with premine is, that there is huge part of the whole amount that can be dumped at any time. If we distributed the community premine like a faucet we would have one motor to keep community activities up.  10% was only a number. It could be anything. It could 2 or even 50%.

@stompix

When I was talking about a certain percentage on a pool I was talking about mining of the companion coin. Also I don´t know why people believe that there won´t be any donations to developers. I am 100% sure that there will be but until very recently there were a lot of doubts if we would be able to get in touch with Max Guevara and thanks to the dedicated work of people like Victor we did it and he even agreed to cooperate with others (which was in doubt before as well). So, I believe if there are donations needed (the developers never asked for donations) we will be able to raise them.

@maok

Multisig is a good idea. Basically what you propose sounds like a kind of Kickstarter for Quark. I know there are actors like Headfunder who may be usable for us in the future if its about collecting money and paying it back if the target isnt reached.

Sounds like ripping people, maybe I missed your point?

Implementing sidechains in Quark could be an alternative that would create interest, so it seems to be a plausible idea to discuss to me. But remember that raising funds is not so easy and developers need to be rewarded in some way.
 

@reRaise


Yep, I think that, too. I mean, the main negative things about premine is:

a) most people do it to enrich themselves without promising anything and the full ability to dump it all - that is not acceptable. It is much different if a treasurer of a foundation is in charge (as long as that person is reliable - we need to find ways to guarantee that)
b) there were premines that were even hidden from the community - this is nothing but stealing from everyone. Community premine would be a way to give back to the community and reward not only miners but also those who are active in the community.


No, this was just an initial idea and it needs to be figured out what is best. I think the length of distribution should be related to the time we expect it will take the society to accept crypto + more time where even Joe the plumber can mine. You can even think about concepts like Aircoin (failed in the end?) that adjust distribution in relation to value.


The main benefit is: hashrate. It is what is threatening Quark´s perspective and subsequently value and trust.

Maybe it is even possible to combine the superblock idea with the "companion coin" approach by handing over the superblock in relation to share holdings of the companion coin after a certain period (say 3 years) and by that merging the two coins eventually. (If Quark didn´t become solid in three years then it is not likely to become an accepted crypto, but yeah, could be more or less).


I hope so as well. I mean, I am an idea guy , I am just throwing around scenarios that someone else needs to work out - but in any way it is better if the community comes together, discusses and looks out for challenges and possibilities. Let´s discuss other solutions as well.

True, and I mean, what value have 99% of all coins if not speculation? The real value is the community and their actual capability to create innovative things & to convince others.

"Pretty certain" is not enough for assuming it is this way. I saw many people selling off because they lost trust in Quark. I saw active Quarkers getting inactive. I don´t care who it is ("non tech" "tech" whatsoever) but I care for the reason, and the reason is that there was a lack of activity from the development side.

Your argumention doesn´t take into account that we need an active community more than anything else/ as if the Quark would just survive because it is good but that is not the case. It won´t.  Again: I followed all relevant forums and I know who became inactive because things were not moving forward. Handwaving is not the solution, it is the cause of our situation now and I personally won´t accept that to happen again. We have a momentum now, we shouldn´t waste it.

Now let me answer @silvermetal


Needs to be on exchanges, sure. Bittrex could be a good point to start. It is also possible that we woud need to create giveaways to get it on other mayor exchanges.


Well, why is it attractive to mine at all? We need to offer something, most important: a perspective. If the coin is good and we build a solid framework then people will jump on board.

From my perspective on cryptocurrencies in the future people won´t accept one coin but rather whole sets like Moolah, so it would be rather the question if we should push it onto those services and I think we should do that. Or else: why not?

One wallet is a good idea. Beside this we can promote it on every channel we have in control (Facebook, Twitter, Homepage, Reddit, etc. pp.)

Hai, I would love to have that Foundation but my experience tells me that we will loose a lot of time if we first try to create a renewed Foundation. It´s simply more complicated (paper work!) than releasing a companion coin (even though that will also be complicated to do). Setting up an interim team that prepares the rest sounds to me more realistic - especially as this is currently more or less the case - and I have no doubts we can involve the community by inviting them to the discussion. Maybe post a link on Reddit.

Also, even if we had a working Foundation, we can´t decide easily , we first need an agreement with a developer, which is why I think we should find an agreement, work it out, look if we find motivated developers and then do it.

Yeah, do it!

@Kolin

Yes Kolin, save Quark. I mean, Quark will most likely "survive" but I guess even to you it is not appealing to hold 247 millions of Quark and noone else wants to exchange it with you. As you may have noticed many people sold their Quarks and if you are going to laugh away problems that everyone else in the active community agrees exist then I can see more people turning their back on Quark. The hashrate issue is directly connected to price and trust in Quark, so yeah, we should and will do something about it.

@reRaise

Conditions:

A merge mining coin only makes sense to me if
a) there will be a prospect for a long-term value and
b) it is no direct competitor with Quark

This is why I am against a random roin that merge-mines. The coin should have a longer distribution scheme, let´s say 20 years and a different blockrate, say 3-6 minutes. This would make it distinguishable to Quark and avoid a fast boost with a short bust. When I said this could be an "experimental" coin I didn´t mean to think of it as Bitcoin Testnet but rather as a coin with a higher probability of hard forks when implementing new features.

To experiment on a different coin would sort of solve the discussion on whether we should change the Quark source code. As you know, some people wanted to push things forward and other were sceptical if that wouldn´t we a too high risk factor. To have a longer blockrate and distribution scheme would avoid the coin becoming a direct competitor with Quark as when it comes to adoption for many in-store trades 30 seconds would still be more attractive than 3-6 minutes and the inflation rate would be way higher as with Quark.

Challenges and Solutions:

Of course we need to take care that the coin is neither pumped nor dumped massively. If we want to be serious here, we should go for a currency that encourage community involvement rather than speculation as it happened several times with Quark. Even though premining has for good reason I think there is a way to use premine to guarantee a certain price stability and (yes) trust into the community, namely, if we dedicate 100% of the premine for community projects. I would call this approach "Community Premine":

We premine say 10% of the coin and slowly distribute it over say 3 years use it for the following cause:
a) Payout on discussion forum: We set up a fresh forum for Quark and "Experimental Quark" that substitutes forum.qrk.cc and has some sort of Activity measurement. Top 10 users are paid each months in that currency.
b) Payout on chat: We use a faucet to distribute the currency for people who chat on #quarkuniverse
c) Payout for bounties: a fixed amount is used for bounties where users can propose and vote for what is needed >> this affords a solid Foundation structure (will come back to this later on)
d) Payout for representants of the community
e) + more activity solutions

As you see, there is no premine used for the developer because I believe every premine payout to the developer will raise doubts  whether the developer want to enrich themselves. However, we need to and should pay the developers for their work, but I think we can do it differently:

We set up a pool with a fee of 1% that will be dedicated to the developers. Those of us who want to fund the developer agree on a mining plan that will give back to the developer. This way we actually pay for their work and give them shares of the currency at the same time, which will foster self-interest. We can also agree what their "base" work is and then pay them share of the bounties where every bounty needs to be democratically blessed by the Foundation.

Democratical Foundation:

I repeated my proposal on that many times and will do it here again: To get some stability into the community we need a Foundation that is elected and has power and capacity to lead. Currently we are dealing with a structure that is not very transparent. However, as far as I understand it from talks with most Foundation members there is a great interest to change this situation from both sides: community and foundation. Currently we have three to four working teams beside the Foundation (QuarkUniverse, QuarkPlanet, QuarkLabs and QuarkPress) that are dedictad to the development of Quark.

What can we do?

We renew the Foundation and make the teams integrated part of the community. Everyone can become part of the Foundation by paying a deposit (say an equivalent of 50-100 USD) that is refunded with a short puffer (say 4 weeks) if the person decides to leave the Foundation. By becoming part of the Foundation the person has the right to become and/or elect representants. Representants stay elected for 12 months. Those persons are also paid out of the premine (see above c).

This of course needs to be worked out which is why I believe we should gather active members for a range of 6 months to form an interim structure that prepares the change without getting paid.

This is the graphic that I made (where QuarkComm represents QuarkLabs and QuarkPress)



Please post your comments.


P.S.: No matter if you agree or disagree I would like to encourage everyone to make things happen. Some of our members managed to get in touch with Max and we have the chance to keep the dialogue alive. We shouldn´t waste it.