Hey all, who can put me in contact with Developer Max Guevara? I have quite an extreme idea but it could strengthen both our network and our community!  But it requires that I speak with him as soon as possible.

Cryptsy's wallet is currently down for maintenance, so that is most likely the reason why.

Be wary of coinerer's link peeps !

https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/7c08410315e917554f18b505307dbc6335d7a2476105e8760009141bec00d835/analysis/1413205243/

But now I really don't know how to proceed... I'll need to hard fork again I imagine but on testnet lastnight I tried something... I had an updated client that included the else statements (apart from the one for reward)... My friend had the current wallet and they could talk to each other... It was actually like the else statements made no difference, at least it didn't reject the current client and visa versa...

So... I am thinking if I get the pools to update to the new client with the else statements we SHOULD still be able to talk to the other clients and get the chain moving again as intended... If it doesn't work then well there must be some other issue at play here.

But I think it must be the compounding difficulties, I can't see any other reason... But what is odd is this... Why didn't it do it on testnet? 0.o

Okay guys, I was up all last night looking at this and trying things out on testnet... Really, the problem could lie in so many places, so I am here to ask you what you think about the trade in option... IE we make a new coin, Netcoin Reloaded or something... Pre-mine the existing coin total that is in circulation... And then you send us your Netcoins we send you the new coins 1 for 1...

This has some benefits... We'll know the coin will work properly... Also the block chain will be smaller.

It will be a bit of a pain and a lot of work for us. But we're willing to do it if this is something you are okay with and want. So if you can please let us know what you want us to do.

One way or the other we'll get it sorted!

Which part is closed? When i'm logged out i can still see all sections (quark talk, quark core, intentional and other)

This is all very interesting but really what are we trying to demonstrate here?


Can you just spell out your hypothesis here so we can analyse it once and for all? I'm not saying you're correct or incorrect.

QRK started as a scam? and those involved were somehow got unfair advantage?  - i don't think even if that was the intention it worked out like that.

All of this seems fairly improbable since stephen lamb took more or less the vast majority of easy coins along with a couple of other hash whales. These people to my knowledge dumped them all pretty soon after,reducing the price to arond 60 sats and keeping it down below 200 sats for some time.

Let's just get this all out in the open , deal with it and then forget about it. The origins of the coin and those involved are not all that important at this stage to me. I feel that whatever the start only a few well known hash whales that had bots monitoring the board grabbed it all up and then lost interest and dumped. DI told bill, he brought in a ton of investors, they grabbed a little of each and sit on it. There is not much for sale. Little sells and buys make the price fluctuate a lot. The vast majority never comes near the market.

How's the steam games project going?

Interesting that you enter the Quark thread igotaids.
can you be more specific:
- what are the development connections?
- Which others do you mean?

Why I think it is interesting that igotaids is here?
I have read this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599106.msg6592556#msg6592556

And hm, didn't I post earlier a connection between "digitalindustry", "hazzard" and "shake" before Quark was born?

Shake was one of the creators of Quark.
hazard created kopimicoin