For devs of new wallet version 0.9.2 (new very early stage of development wallet) only:But - I have 1000x less QRKs than before. Only a few  Probably same with transactions. Syncing with network probably work. I refuse to test other sensitive options After returning to current version of wallet, 0.8.23, or my 0.8.24, it seems blockchain is corrupted Do not use this new early stage wallet 0.9.2, just for experiments, except if you have to like I had to Do backup! I see devs work on new wallet based on gui from bitcoin v0.9.2.1. I compiled wallet with newest github source for v0.9.2.1. Some problems solved, wallet started normally. Blockchain seems downloaded fully but still not compatible with prev wallet v0.8.3.23 or my 24). So it needs resyncing (or recovering from backup). Above problem with showing 1000x less quarks still present. Advance is obvious. One suggestion:In configuration.ac change line AC_SUBST(INCLUDES) => AC_SUBST(AM_CPPFLAGS) INCLUDES is obsolete. This wallet is not ready for testing at all! They have begun the transition- I will let you know when the update is complete and ready for testing- Of course it is not ready for testing at all. But not for me Btw, inform devs about this suggestion. |
|
|
|
For devs of new wallet version 0.9.2 (new very early stage of development wallet) only:But - I have 1000x less QRKs than before. Only a few Probably same with transactions. Syncing with network probably work. I refuse to test other sensitive options After returning to current version of wallet, 0.8.23, or my 0.8.24, it seems blockchain is corrupted Do not use this new early stage wallet 0.9.2, just for experiments, except if you have to like I had to Do backup! I see devs work on new wallet based on gui from bitcoin v0.9.2.1. I compiled wallet with newest github source for v0.9.2.1. Some problems solved, wallet started normally. Blockchain seems downloaded fully but still not compatible with prev wallet v0.8.3.23 or my 24). So it needs resyncing (or recovering from backup). Above problem with showing 1000x less quarks still present. Advance is obvious. One suggestion:In configuration.ac change line AC_SUBST(INCLUDES) => AC_SUBST(AM_CPPFLAGS) INCLUDES is obsolete. |
|
|
|
Let's try this instead of storytellings: Does somebody want to invest in Quark just for buying possible new Coin Core - coin without any known characteristics?
Should I set poll with this question?  |
|
|
|
@coinerer
Keep repeating...Quark deserves better? I am 100% with you. Now provide these solution en detalle and I will be happy to follow.
P.S. Your compiled wallets don't help with the hashrate issue.
my compiled wallet is only a small and easy step to improve something a bit. Nothing big improved. Just compiled with newest libraries (it required somewhat big work to me, new in compiling wallets ) I also tried personally to work in updating/correcting new early development stage wallet 0.9.2. It is very big job especially for me now. It requires very deep understandings how every wallet or gui works. My fast and nervous attempts of the changing code are not good for such work |
|
|
|
I wouldn't know why the community wouldn't want to move to a better Crypto with more dev activity and promising features. I would, as a Quark holder.
What we would get from this move is: security problem will be solved, development funds, more dev activity and techs added. Although we really should try to keep ShaqFu, it's something that really separates a Crypto from others, it's something no other Crypto can have. With new techs other cryptos can add it as well but something like ShaqFu is special, so we need to make sure if ShaqFu devs can go with Core instead of quark, if we explain it i don't see a reason why they shouldn't.
Overal i like this, but need to see what the rest thinks about this as well.
Do you really enjoy telling people cut your losses after the fall of 95%? You should work for some famous institutions and its story tellers Better crypto. lol Better features. lol Promising features sell. lol ... Say simple, pump and dump. |
|
|
|
Yellow, So what happens to existing Quark holders with their coins in a Proof of Burn process? Do they lose that investment? YC Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die. What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we wonīt be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I wonīt play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk. I think if we want to have any hope of maintaining Quark's value during the switch we need to use proof-of-burn (granted, Quark's value is super-low right now but we are still around #20 in marketcap among the hundreds and hundreds of coins out there). I worry that if we make a companion coin without killing quark (or at least some quarkcoins) then all we will do is divide the quark community in half. Some will stick with quark and others will move to the companion coin...especially if it experiences a pump after its launch.To ensure that the new coin has value we need to destroy something that currently does have value--i.e. quarkcoins. Just my 2 quarks. This is a good point and i agree with this. It will divide the community and will make quark fade away, i would rather go with Core. I wouldn't know why ShaqFu devs wouldn't agree if we tell them that quark moved to core. ShaFu is one of the biggest Crypto achievements and we need to keep it. Is not much simpler that Shaq Fu create his own clone? |
|
|
|
|
Talking about new coin (Core) without any characteristics of that coin is nonsense.
If market needs nonsenses that is ok.
Instead of thinking about what Doge did in its first month (exchange, Doge markets everywhere), instead of thinking about creating exchange where quark might be exchanged to hundreds of coins you discuss about exchanging Quarks to new Coins with unknown characteristics. Is that something better than nonsense?
If I was reading such and other nonsenses (listed in my prev posts) before half year, I would not have Quarks today. I will wait at 20 sat what is right price for such ideas.
QuarkCoin which established one of the main directions among virtual coins deserves much better, not big set of nonsenses.
|
|
|
|
For devs of new wallet version 0.9.2 (new very early stage of development wallet) only:After compilation on Windows 8, Mingw & gcc 4.9.0, and starting quark-qt.exe, wallet failed to start and Error is: MinGW Runtime Assertion
Assertion failed!
Program: ..somepath..\quark-qt.exe
File: chainparams.cpp, Line 68
Expression: hashGenesisBlock == hashMainGenesisBlock
After few pressing on Ignore button, wallet started But - I have 1000x less QRKs than before. Only a few Probably same with transactions. Syncing with network probably work. I refuse to test other sensitive options After returning to current version of wallet, 0.8.23, or my 0.8.24, it seems blockchain is corrupted Do not use this new early stage wallet 0.9.2, just for experiments, except if you have to like I had to Do backup!
|
|
|
|
Additionally, our C++ coder/Quark community member: Someguy1234.. will be assisting Max with updates! 
From Max Guevera.:"Status on 0.9.2 code-base upgrade: I've setup a github repository on: https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/based on the latest Bitcoin 0.9.2 branch. The following changes have been committed: https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/commits/master* Makefiles updated * Chain parameters * Checkpoints * Configuration files * SHA2 POW hashing replaced with Quark hashing * Some translations from "Bitcoin" to "Quark" * Graphics * Payment server The following changes were applied to Quark: https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commits/masterAll these commits needs to be included in the 0.9.2 branch of Quark. In particular we still need to add dynamic checkpoints, from this commit: https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commit/79c3190f111cd97cfa653c382417499c1614948cOther changes still to do: * Places where UI text still says "Bitcoin" * Chinese translations for "Quark" * Other core differences between Quark and Bitcoin, particular those made by Sifcoin * Lots of testing! Someguy( NameEdited), feel free to create pull requests for any additional changes or e-mail me queries you may have. Cheers" I have just compiled new QuarkCoins Wallet version 0.9.2 (very early stage of development). At this stage they made extremely good job for compiling at my Windows and MinGW. Compilation passed without any problems (thanks to my script for Windows compiling too ) Compilation passed never easier. But, wallet 0.9.2 is not yet for use (very early stage of development). It crashed immediately after start. So I did not see wallet outook. I think devs will made good job. I like their extremely good compilation configuration for now If somebody wants to try this compilation, first must is to make backup of current wallet. |
|
|
|
Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?
What will be characteristics of the new clone?
You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions canīt be answered. This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didnīt hear any substantial contribution to the discussion. I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones, ... I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins. I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now. How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over. Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily. I am not sure, but is there real difference between opening wallet and opening miners. Opening wallet is energy efficient, mining is not. Maybe solution should be using constant difficulty? Fixed chances (according to total number of opened wallets) to reward opening each wallet? Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though? Again if merge mining is the only solution then it should be done, quark with an insecure network won't go big. Quarks network security and popularity should rise before ShaqFu comes out. Also merge mine (couple % premine) give us enough funds to work on new techs and add value to quark as well as securing the network. I mean quark hasn't much to lose anyway if you look at the price. By my experience in mining, problem is in the competition who will mine more. Those with better equipments. Every wallet is also miner (very weak for competition and current algorithms). If every wallet will have the same chance to mine coins (regardless of power of equipment, computer) people should have interest to open wallet and mine coins using only wallets. I think that will cause to make (algorithmically) difficulty constant (not important) and external miner (program) not needed (except miner embedded with wallet). Also, today mining is performing in the pools mainly. And pool is only 1 wallet (I suppose). So, poole shoud be eliminated. If we spread mining to all opened wallets only, we get big network of wallets-miners where each wallets control every other wallet/transaction. Ofc, I don't know to implement that now I think this is simplification of the current algorithms, and not sure about possible problems with such algorithm simplification. |
|
|
|
Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?
What will be characteristics of the new clone?
You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions canīt be answered. This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didnīt hear any substantial contribution to the discussion. I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones, ... I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins. I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now. How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over. Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily. I am not sure, but is there real difference between opening wallet and opening miners. Opening wallet is energy efficient, mining is not. Maybe solution should be using constant difficulty? Fixed chances (according to total number of opened wallets and time) to reward opening each wallet? And for preventing simulations of opening many wallets, it should think about opening 1 wallet per computer, network card? |
|
|
|
Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?
What will be characteristics of the new clone?
You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions canīt be answered. This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didnīt hear any substantial contribution to the discussion. I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones, ... I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins. I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now. Another btw, it is better to not show number of visitors who visited http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/. At least nice number of countries, not number of visitors. |
|
|
|
Keep brainstorming ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, inviting devs for new clones, ... Quarks from bull to shit. It is market. From shit it has chance to grow again. Continue and price will be good to buy soon. Sorry Donīt know what your agenda is, you seem repeating points (and smilieys) you already made. Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ? What will be characteristics of the new clone? Brw, market reacted on the new brainstorming ideas. |
|
|
|
Hello World!  Write that on C |
|
|
|
just sayin'
just sayin', you are right |
|
|
|
Keep brainstorming ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, inviting devs for new clones, ... Quarks from bull to shit. It is market. From shit it has chance to grow again. Continue and price will be good to buy soon. Sorry |
|
|
|
Syncing works, but what is with devs? No visible signs of working at all. dev to the moon let's see where it will moon land. |
|
|
|
Syncing works, but what is with devs? No visible signs of working at all. |
|
|
|
Now we are throwing up solutions, then another one from my side about the merged mining coin.
I read some of the proposals and in my opinion we make it all too complicated...I should have studied maths and economics if I want to follow just a bit of it. How will you explain the final idea? And why would we think the final idea is good for Quark?
Why not start just a simple coin for fun. Make a game / social site (something like gamepoint or something) where the community comes together, and everybody can earn some coins just by mining. It will have only have virtual value so nobody cares if you loose 10000s of that coin. You can easily mine it back. Nobody get rich with that coin and it helps to get some hashrate. People will not mine it for 100% most probably, but maybe 5-10%? Every little bits help. The game site should be easy accessible via the Quark wallet (extra hashrate for Quark). Also in the chat you can throw each other some coins when he/she has been helpful in the IRC. It will be just a friendly coin, worthless but fun and no competitor for Quark.
The reason why people are not playing games with Quark (at quark universe) for example is that they consider Quark as real money.
Play games with your fellow quarkers and help the hashrate.
Quark wants to be a game coin or not?
Simple coins for fun? There are more than 600 Repeat once again? What doge did at its 1st month? Doge market at all of the main exchanges. Doge made standard what successful coin should do. Now I read ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, and other nonsenses for me. I almost agree with market is perfect in reflecting all available informations. And devs should retain monopoly on creating and compiling QuarkCoin Wallet with all newest available libraries. Fantastic coins |
|
|
|
"bottom is at 21 sat"
Yep, I still have a couple qrk i bought for 21 satoshi each...
I have mined by electrical costs. I don't know if it is lower. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
