Hi guys, I will pass this info on to Hash Engineering - thanks for catching this! |
|
|
|
previously they were Shilling "superblocks" to Max ( he was likely laughing to himself)
on what fucking planet are you living on? Those weren't trolls or shills users, that was an official meeting that took place with Quark main dev which is Max. You have the full transcript, Max was the one that brought the subject up and said that this solution could be implemented to incentivize regular people to keep their PC open. I agree and so most of the core supporters. For those who wish to see more details partial conversation is listed here: http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/2cnzru/from_the_chat_max_considering_adding_random_block/ where I also posted this solution further to the calculations done by promethium. He has always been against changes to the code if not approved by him, then he turns against them like he kicked out some core members back in december when they wanted to fix what could be fixed. If we adopt this solution he can stick on the old blockchain and make his transactions useless. It all depends on the majority not on one guy. Those that got kicked maybe didn't understood this: you can't get kicked out from a decentralized system. Well eventually they left themselves, because they couldn't work together with kolin since he was the gateway between the community and max and since max pretty much disappeared at a crucial time when quark was booming people saw kolin as the face of quark, but he didn't gave these members room for working on quark since he believed they wanted to harm quark just like he says now with his "shilling for superblocks" Hmmm..yes, It seemed Kolin was in charge at the old Quark Forum, and many claimed they were kicked out (banned from the forum) or maligned when they disagreed. This seems to be happening again, with the "trolls" and "shills" comments (he even called Max a Shill on the Reddit, lol- so its a bit ridiculous). Anyway, I came into Quark just at the tail end of that, when the new Foundation Forum formed.. The Foundation formed as a way of getting free of that, and helping to fairly launch projects..but the Foundation, although with good intentions, never really got to be a fully structured organization- a re-structuring is needed now. We had some funding a while back when the value of Quark was much higher, but much of those funds have been utilized- Hey, Maok, can you start a thread on the quarktalk.org for the block reward discussion? |
|
|
|
Hi Everyone,
Thanks to everyone who attended Sundays meeting- and thank you especially to Max and Shake for attending, and for your help with clearing up some matters.
Below is the chat log of the meeting for your reference--
There is another meeting planned for Quark community members next Sunday to discuss future,projects etc.
Exact time tba...
For me personally, the main highlights of the meeting that come to mind are:
- The concept of adding large random rewards (aka superblock) to Quark, to increase incentive to miners/increase hashrate. (This # needs to be worked out so as not to affect overall inflation rate- and would require a fork).
- Max is willing to work with Shake and the Foundation on developing a merge mine project, if one is brought forth. Additionally any Quark algo can merge mine with Quark, and Max does not control this.
**There were many more items discussed- Some core members have expressed their indecision about continuing forward as a result of ongoing concerns/recent events- this will become more clear as the coming weeks progress.
If anyone wants to post a more detailed outline of the meeting for reference, this might be good. Meanwhile everyone can refer to the log.
By next week, hopefully we should have a better idea of where things are heading! 
Thanks again!
Chat Log with Max and Adam : http://pastebin.com/jviD91wL
P.S. On the topic of the random "superblock" reward idea, here are some excerpts from the chat to get the conversation going..Comments? CH?!?!:" [20:56:27] <MaxGuevara> from the suggestions i've heard, i'm not opposed to a random lotto-type reward, as long as it doesn't increase inflation to much, i.e. some random blocks have reward higher than 1 [20:56:52] <@iamfx> are you referring to superblocks? [20:57:13] <MaxGuevara> yes [20:57:19] <quarkcheck> But that also means hard fork of Quark no? [20:57:23] <MaxGuevara> yes [20:57:28] <promethium> If they were spaced out enough there would be little impact on inflation [20:57:43] <MaxGuevara> yes, that's what i was thinking" "[21:03:07] <coinmama> I did not realize that u would consider a fork to change the rewards--If this is possible to be implemented, would u consider suggestions put forth by the community? If so, I can bring it forward as a discussion. [21:04:34] <MaxGuevara> yes coinmama, we can discuss with the community. the superblocks should be large enough to encourage people to mine (like a lotto winning), but sparse enough so that inflation doesn't go too high [21:05:51] <coinmama> yes this sounds like it could be reasonable--however would it require any changes re: exchanges or changing any infrastructure we currently have [21:05:52] <coinmama> ? [21:07:17] <MaxGuevara> pools and exchanges just need to update to the latest daemon [21:07:35] <MaxGuevara> android wallets and such will require changes to their code" "[21:08:47] <Netnox> How much reward should we approximately imagine for a superblock by meaning more then 1? [21:10:17] <MaxGuevara> we will have to look at the inflation and see how much we're willing to make it rise, but maybe blocks of up to 512 qrk reward or such.. i'm open to suggestions, we just have to do the calculations." "[21:25:28] <promethium> can I present some figures on superblocks? [21:26:37] <@iamfx> please go ahead promethium [21:26:41] <promethium> 0.5% inflation would create 1,240,000 quarks per year 1,051,200 are actually being created. Adding superblocks to the value of 188,800 quarks would still fall within the 0.5% range; A superblock of 3630 Quarks every week would still maintain the original perview." Please everyone, since Max is considering adding additional block rewards as an option, lets see what we can contribute in terms of ideas on block rewards that might work to increase incentive to miners, while still in keeping with the 0.5% inflation range--What do people think of Promethiums idea, anyone have different block reward ideas? Once we get some community feedback we can bring it forward to Max
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone:
A day ago we heard from Max on an email that I sent to him recently regarding some serious issues that were cropping up within the community-
The letter was entitled "urgent!" Because it was--
Recent events involving blatant (& provable) deception of the community prompted the letter, as many dedicated Quark community members have decided to leave and/or (more recently) go with a fork or Proof of Burn- This still may be the case, but anyway here is the reply to some questions from Max so the community can decide for themselves--
Please note that I normally do not ask such pointed questions, but Quark has been under a dark cloud of suspicion for months, and we didn't need for this to continue with obvious scam associations (i.e. MimicCoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg8039982#msg8039982) .
So I can't apologize for attempting to clear the air once and for all..
**Also, there is a follow-up meeting with Max this Sunday (time to be determined)
Please post any additional questions here, or post if you are interested in attending the meeting.
As you see Max is open to the idea of coins merge mining with Quark-- perhaps we can (re-) open this discussion in the next day or two (this was previously started, but halted)...
**
Here is Max's reply:
"Hi Foundation members, developers and other Quark supporters
Julie bought up some points and questions.
I'll first comment on Julie's questions:
1) How much of a role Kolin plays in the decision making process with you, and Quark itself?
4) Is Kolin the only way to effectively reach you (some have observed that you appear only when he contacts you?)
As I've mentioned before, Kolin is a Quark supporter and is free to as he please. He has no special relationship with me, other than that he e-mails me more than other people do and I also ignore Kolin for weeks on end. I unfortunately only check my Quark e-mails when I have time to.
As for the decision making process:
I am chiefly involved in maintaining the Quark core code. Quark supporters are the real driving force behind Quark's path forward.
I greatly respect the work the Quark Foundation has done and will always consider any suggestions from them.
2) Are you already working on a merge mine project with Kolin and /or Adam/others?
3) If nothing has been decided yet, are you open to *considering* a merge mine proposal presented to you (one project mutually decided on by the core Group, submitted in an outline form)?
Anyone is free to launch a coin that merge mines with Quark, so if Kolin wants to launch a merged mined coin with Quark, so be it.
If members of the core Quark group / Foundation wishes to launch a merge mined Quark coin, I will support the decision, and will even help with the initial coding, but I won't have time for anything more than the occasional code update.
To be clear, the only coin I officially support is Quark. I do however support the decision by other Quark-based coins to merge mine with Quark.
Answers to below questions can be used as the long -awaited followup Q&A from Max G:
5) Do you have intentions of staying active with Quark updates and developments, maybe through occasional periodic updates on the new Forumhttp://forum.quarkuniverse.cc/index.php [EDIT www.Quarktalk.org] (you can open a topic, or whatever format suits you)?
I am and will chiefly involve myself in maintaining the Quark core code. I have done this for more than a year now and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future.
6) What are your thoughts on how important a merge mine project to increase Quark's hashrate is, given the fact that we have automatic checkpoints? Can you clarify your views on this a little?
I support the decision by any Quark based coin that would like to merge mine with Quark. This increases the hash rate to Quark and can only be good for the security of the Quark network.
Automatic checkpointing does help preventing attacks on the block-chain. It does have a down-side of being run centralised by a trusted node.
The more the hash rate can be increased, the less chance of attack and the less the need and relevance of the automatic checkpointing becomes.
A coin is only as valuable as it's community makes it, so if two coins can bring together two coin communities to the benefit of both, I support it.
7) Re: Checkpoints- We still get a lot of questions on this: Is it a checkpoint inserted at every block, going back 12 blocks? Or is it a checkpoint inserted every 12 blocks, that checks back to the last checkpoint (12 blocks ago)? (I have seen this explained 2 different ways by you and Adam). Any way you could elaborate on the value of checkpoints would be helpful.
At the moment the setting is actually 16 blocks, but to your question, the checkpointing is done at every block, for the block 16 blocks behind the current block.
8 ) Is there some security measure in place yet(back-up node etc), in case someone attacks the node? (Let us know if we can assist in setting something up?)
Not yet.
9) Are you open to sharing Git access with other developers, or some trusted person, in the event that you become unavailable or unable (other obligations, unplanned events etc.) to work on Quarks code?
The way Github works is that anyone is free to submit pull requests for the project. A person doesn't need access to create a pull request. It literally takes me one click to incorporate the changes into the main branch of Quark.
I have always encouraged this, but sadly, very few people have actually made any contribution to the code over the last year.
I have no problem giving full access to someone who regularly contributes code to the project, or someone who has good reputation/track-record as a coder. I would love to get more developers actively involved.
People are also free to make derivatives of the Quark wallet with flashy features, as others have done. I appreciate and encourage such creativeness. These features can easily be pulled into the original branch.
10) Re: Quark "whitepaper" - Didn't you write one at some point? (I could have sworn it existed and that I read part of it!?) Is this available anymore?
I will consider writing some kind of whitepaper. I think a lot of my economic and technical motivation for developing Quark was mentioned in an early interview (maybe 6 months ago).
My immediate plans for Quark core development:
Next week - Finalise the 0.9.2 Quark upgrade and merge it with the main branch. I've had no feedback or error reports on this so far, so I'll do a bit more testing before doing the final release.
Thanks again to all the faithful Quark supporters that are contributing to Quark in ways I can not.
Cheers"*
|
|
|
|
There is no proof whatsoever that the blockchain has been manipulated Just proofs again you know nothing about quark. There was already proof posted which you can also see on bitcointalk if you look for it.Of course you the new leading part have no clue about it.
The POB coin can and will have major success if handled correctly and tranparently. What exactly are you claiming about these large wallets? Be precise and back up these claims with hard evidence. Do not say things that can't be proven else you will lose all credibility and will just be ignored in future. I am trying to understand what angle you have here. I was here at the launch and i know for a fact there was no premine, there was an instamine of sorts by steve lamb, who i affectionately named the coin rapist because of his instamining super powers with huge processing power. He did this on many coins. However, the dev took very few coins and the rest of us just made do with mining on our rigs like the vast majority. I can not say how many exactly steve took but if you look at his screen shot i guess he got a LOT of coins at the start. Please tell us exactly who you think this wallet is holding 33M and how they attained those coins? Bring evidence or at least credible reasoning with you not baseless accusations. If you can PROVE some kind of scam here i am open to hearing about it and i am sure others are too. I don't see how there can be one though, since the only way to get coins was to mine them, if you wanted to buy them from another miner it is down to them to decide the price. MAX never got many coins, from the start he never really did any promotion of the coin and it was soon all dumped on cryptsy for next to nothing. The wallet with 33M or any wallet would have had to buy them or mine them. There is no scam that i can see could have happened. If there is a scam please outline right now how it took place and the motivation of the huge wallet to accrue 10% of the minting only to let the coin sink to a very low value, this is a terrible scam if it ever was one. ------ --------- --------- Thule explain the qrk scam in specific detail. Make sure to explain how it took place and why. I am interested in how you believe one wallet got control of 10% of the minting without mining or buying it. To me it seems impossible. However, if you can show me how it happened and it was not via mining or buying then YES perhaps we will think of a way to rectify this situation. Let me say though that i was mining at the start along with a few others i know on only our home machines and over the next months mined fairly over 2M quark, we did hire a couple of cheap servers with dual core xeons that were like 80 bucks each a month. So even if they mined them all i see that could have been quite possible for any one other than a bunch of noobs with a few rigs at home. That is only 15x what we mined. QRK was very fair to those that chose to mine it, as the price sunk less people mined and moved to mining other coins. Anyway, i will await your detailed explanation of this 33M wallet issue that you are upset about. I think though you will find they either bought or mined it fairly on closer scrutiny. If you can not prove the 33m and other whale wallets attained these coins in a way that was unfair i hope you will please move on to other parts of the discussion here.
IT is good to hear from someone who was actually there since the beginning, @CH as most of us present members were not...
From what I have heard the hugest remaining wallets are likely from exchanges, as BTC38 came forward recently(past few months) with their wallet address
I agree with CH that Thule, you need to come forward with some PROOF of your claims--We are open to see proof only. Additionally I have p.m.'d you about this issue, as you keep saying the same things over and over..We actually have someone who is willing to help investigate your claims if you can present some evidence--Further I suggest that a separate thread be started specifically for this if there is evidence, so it can all be worked through...
And FINALLY, last but not least..We are going to be having a meeting with Max himself-time to be announced....
If you are willing to participate in a civilized discussion, you are welcome to attend.. Civilized meaning, asking questions in a normal rational manner, rather than throwing accusations around with no evidence.
This is the best way to get to the bottom of this- You might just be the key to this if you have something substantial to bring forward...
Thanks for your reply!
P.S. I type in blue so I can keep track of where I am on the page mostly, lol- If this annoys anyone, I will stop 
|
|
|
|
Always Remember:"Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public." -Kolin  Yes Ill remember because nothing could be further from the truth-- As I said here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=657528.msg8122103#msg8122103Kolin, if you are going to pretend you are not the OP of Mimic, at least remember to change your login back to Digital Industry when posting on other threads about NXT! ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7545981#msg7545981) Meantime, I am looking forward to the meeting next week to discuss REAL solutions: Finding a new Dev, fork, proof of Burn- lets decide the best options and move forward so we can get out from this cloud once and for all!! |
|
|
|
This appears to be digitalindustry's coin, or one he is massively involved in and everyone should STAY AWAY.
Perhaps this will clear some doubt as to the involvement anyway... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7545981#msg7545981Kolin, next time you are going to remain "incognito" about a coin you are launching, I suggest changing your login back to digitalindustry before having "Mimi" posting about NXT scams on another thread? (Or separating yourself from the project entirely might be a better idea- will your ego ever allow it?). |
|
|
|
So as it was brought up in email i'd like to get feedback from the community about how they feel about this Crypto - the parameters look good and it seems exceptional as it seems like a fair start and has benign non hostile interest on the forum -
"AS julie suggested in email we should re-brand it if the Dev is palatable to that he seems keen from the limited contact i've had with him."
for a merge mine to work I'd like to involve as much as the general public with the idea of profiting from mining a crypto, i think this can be achieved now.
For the record, I never said this...Very annoying!! So now I attach the email for what I actually said:
"Hi everyone, I have been following this thread for a few days and I will just reply here on some things I see, and also including Max and others in the reply (many people were deleted from this thread?)- Max is after all an essential part of any discussion on a merge mine project. Once again I am hoping to get clarity directly from him on where everything stands, so we can get some direction moving forward. Regarding the merge mine, Peter has pretty clearly laid out what his main objections would be, and likely also what most of the core community's objections would be as well- *secrecy* in moving a project forward without *any* input or knowledge of the rest of the core group. Just as a reminder and for clarification for everyone: A few weeks ago, I sent out an email to the entire group regarding the idea of the merge mine project, so that we could begin discussing it in earnest (fyi, this was to get more transparency after the B9 "mess" was exposed) , and to begin working out a project that we could support and present with confidence to the community- There were some very good ideas by Victor and others, and a board was tentatively started in order to move things along, planning-wise. People were largely in support of a merge mine project if the details could be worked out, and there was a bounty raised for this as well. @Kolin, shortly afterward (er-immediately), you started a new thread, and made a few statements which were dismissive of others ideas, and also indicating that the project was under some control of yours, and would go a certain predetermined way. Vague answers to direct questions on this were not helpful, and certainly we could not move forward in trying to plan anything until knowing what was possible and what wasn't (!).. Things pretty much ground to a halt at that point, as all constructive discussions stopped. I have to say in my own experience I have had very little motivation to do anything for Quark recently, because we have no idea of who is actually leading the ship. Why all the vagueness and secrecy? So there is no bureaucracy, but there is a VERY clear stumbling block here--which is a complete lack of transparency as to what projects are taking place, and who is in charge of them. Peter has requested a meeting to clear things up, I have sent an email to Max as well. Kolin, looking at some of these Quark clones you speak of.. MimicCoin- an exact replica of the B9, created right after B9. Such a coincidence that the stars have aligned like this?..and the dev has contacted you, right after your announcement.. and we are to believe this. A plain Quark clone, created with no features, but "just so happens" to fit what you are asking for -No premine. Sock-puppets (secret members of the Quark community?) present to support, mine, and accumulate this coin of no value or appeal, ramping up the difficulty already- how lovely and nice. First step of the multi-step plan in progress- "mining monopoly". I will spare everyone the rest of the steps(rebrand, Bill Still), but why are we not informed of this again? Even when Peter asks directly we get some vague answer, or outright omission of the truth, and sarcasm about the beauty of crypto(I.e. "you can buy or sell, stay or leave"). A plan like this (with some minor modification) would have had so much more support if it were not so secretive and scammy in appearance. Right after the B9 no less- Trust IS at the core of why this would not be supported- Yes, as Peter indicated- the only reason why I ever objected to the B9 was because of the hidden nature of it (not just keeping Core members out of it, but hiding it), and having no clearly identifiable and trustworthy plan as to who would mine for whom, how it would be introduced to the community,or raise money for the Foundation(projects) etc,etc.. Also, there was no cohesiveness, even among the people planning it. And Kolin for some reason you object to a transparent pre-mine, : "community" or "Foundation premine" or something workable and transparent that would fairly pay everyone involved? You will not even consider anyone else's proposal, but appear to be going ahead with your own- Why? (And also, how is it possible that you have the veto power?) I am for a merge mine project as discussed in the IRC meeting (and so was nearly everyone on this thread until things fell apart)- A project that done fairly would raise enough money for the devs, the Foundation (infrastructure projects), etc...
Could not the trusted Foundation (after some structuring) be the one that presents the plan to the community: that we are going ahead with a merge mine plan to support the hash-rate , add features, and manage a pre-mine (for devs and infrastructure)?
I am pretty confident we could sell the community on something we actually support.. Also Kolin, you have so many trollers following you now as a result of your NXT posts etc, you need the support of the core group, not to have Quark trashed as a result of a scammy appearing project...." The email goes on, but mainly posting it here to clarify that I don't agree with rebranding a coin that is scammy in appearance-
I am however in favor of what I highlighted in bold..
CH, the plan with MimicCoin is to launch a plain Quark Clone with zero features, not to publicize it, but mine the hell out of it, then introduce it to the community as the "newly found merge-mine solution", rebranding it and publicizing-
No I am not in favor of doing this technique at all- especially with lies surrounding it... just for the record!
You can't "mine the hell out of" something that has a block halving time of 4 years and a primary distribution time of 20 years. Sure you can...If a block reward is 20, @q 5 minutes... and a few "insiders" (mimi &friends) are mining the coins... 20x 12 x 24 x 30= 172k MimiCoin in one month!.. Add to this the longer term distribution for value and incentive to mine....and the plan to "re-brand" and then promote to increase the value and incentive, driving up difficulty...etc... By appearances it adds up to an unfair advantage- And just for the scammy appearances alone it will likely be mined and dumped as soon as it achieves any perceivable value... Unless "Mimi" will be convinced to turn over the majority stake of the mined coins for a transparent Foundation fund for infrastructure development, I don't see how this wouldn't be viewed as unfair. Still no one in the Foundation or QU or any core member for that matter appears to be aware of such a plan, and at this stage, would probably not even be achievable. It was not my desire to make this issue public, until a blatant lie was told to everyone here (above) and on Reddit...And yet still the plan still appears to move forward on the MimicCoin thread. What unbelievable egos are involved here. Once again there were so any different ways to go about launching something like this fairly and cleanly.... For example: having a fair start, with the Foundation and/or some trusted group of members transparently mining for infrastructure development- as well as the merge mine to increase hashrate...instead of this non-transparent deceptive b.s. |
|
|
|
gtfo with this coin, this is not the coin of a community but a selfish individual
for someone that frequents this community - and a currency with a 4 year until halving , how do you explain that? just give me the technicals ? Let me explain it to you in simple words: In Cryptocurrencies you deal with something that is called difficulty. The more people mine, the harder it gets to receive the reward. Still with me? So if someone launches a totally worthless coin like this one (why worthless? No infrastructure, no plans, no funds, no community) most people wonīt mine it > effect is: difficulty stays decent and those few who mine receive large shares of the coin. Now letīs assume just for coincidence one larger community, letīs call it "Quark" for the moment, is looking for a Merge mining coin, "discovers" this small and unimportant currency and decides that this could be a good opportunity to use it as merge mining coin. A handful of assumeably faithful "Quarkers" present this as a good opportunity and motivate the masses to mine this coin. What happens is that difficulty goes naturaly up and people receive much smaller shares because the interest is higher. * * * * So, those who started early with mining had a huge advantage but who could know that this would turn into a valuable coin, right?Unless this wasnīt the plan from the very first moment, this looks like a totally fair thing to deal with. I agree with the "hint" above--If this coin were not part of a secret plan in which the person launching the coin is the one "discovering" it (after mining it for over 1 month), it might be a great/fair idea..In which case, I suggest scrapping this project and starting over with something that the community can support!!. Is there no better way to do this?? Please! |
|
|
|
So as it was brought up in email i'd like to get feedback from the community about how they feel about this Crypto - the parameters look good and it seems exceptional as it seems like a fair start and has benign non hostile interest on the forum -
"AS julie suggested in email we should re-brand it if the Dev is palatable to that he seems keen from the limited contact i've had with him."
for a merge mine to work I'd like to involve as much as the general public with the idea of profiting from mining a crypto, i think this can be achieved now.
For the record, I never said this...Very annoying!! So now I attach the email for what I actually said:
"Hi everyone, I have been following this thread for a few days and I will just reply here on some things I see, and also including Max and others in the reply (many people were deleted from this thread?)- Max is after all an essential part of any discussion on a merge mine project. Once again I am hoping to get clarity directly from him on where everything stands, so we can get some direction moving forward. Regarding the merge mine, Peter has pretty clearly laid out what his main objections would be, and likely also what most of the core community's objections would be as well- *secrecy* in moving a project forward without *any* input or knowledge of the rest of the core group. Just as a reminder and for clarification for everyone: A few weeks ago, I sent out an email to the entire group regarding the idea of the merge mine project, so that we could begin discussing it in earnest (fyi, this was to get more transparency after the B9 "mess" was exposed) , and to begin working out a project that we could support and present with confidence to the community- There were some very good ideas by Victor and others, and a board was tentatively started in order to move things along, planning-wise. People were largely in support of a merge mine project if the details could be worked out, and there was a bounty raised for this as well. @Kolin, shortly afterward (er-immediately), you started a new thread, and made a few statements which were dismissive of others ideas, and also indicating that the project was under some control of yours, and would go a certain predetermined way. Vague answers to direct questions on this were not helpful, and certainly we could not move forward in trying to plan anything until knowing what was possible and what wasn't (!).. Things pretty much ground to a halt at that point, as all constructive discussions stopped. I have to say in my own experience I have had very little motivation to do anything for Quark recently, because we have no idea of who is actually leading the ship. Why all the vagueness and secrecy? So there is no bureaucracy, but there is a VERY clear stumbling block here--which is a complete lack of transparency as to what projects are taking place, and who is in charge of them. Peter has requested a meeting to clear things up, I have sent an email to Max as well. Kolin, looking at some of these Quark clones you speak of.. MimicCoin- an exact replica of the B9, created right after B9. Such a coincidence that the stars have aligned like this?..and the dev has contacted you, right after your announcement.. and we are to believe this. A plain Quark clone, created with no features, but "just so happens" to fit what you are asking for -No premine. Sock-puppets (secret members of the Quark community?) present to support, mine, and accumulate this coin of no value or appeal, ramping up the difficulty already- how lovely and nice. First step of the multi-step plan in progress- "mining monopoly". I will spare everyone the rest of the steps(rebrand, Bill Still), but why are we not informed of this again? Even when Peter asks directly we get some vague answer, or outright omission of the truth, and sarcasm about the beauty of crypto(I.e. "you can buy or sell, stay or leave"). A plan like this (with some minor modification) would have had so much more support if it were not so secretive and scammy in appearance. Right after the B9 no less- Trust IS at the core of why this would not be supported- Yes, as Peter indicated- the only reason why I ever objected to the B9 was because of the hidden nature of it (not just keeping Core members out of it, but hiding it), and having no clearly identifiable and trustworthy plan as to who would mine for whom, how it would be introduced to the community,or raise money for the Foundation(projects) etc,etc.. Also, there was no cohesiveness, even among the people planning it. And Kolin for some reason you object to a transparent pre-mine, : "community" or "Foundation premine" or something workable and transparent that would fairly pay everyone involved? You will not even consider anyone else's proposal, but appear to be going ahead with your own- Why? (And also, how is it possible that you have the veto power?) I am for a merge mine project as discussed in the IRC meeting (and so was nearly everyone on this thread until things fell apart)- A project that done fairly would raise enough money for the devs, the Foundation (infrastructure projects), etc...
Could not the trusted Foundation (after some structuring) be the one that presents the plan to the community: that we are going ahead with a merge mine plan to support the hash-rate , add features, and manage a pre-mine (for devs and infrastructure)?
I am pretty confident we could sell the community on something we actually support.. Also Kolin, you have so many trollers following you now as a result of your NXT posts etc, you need the support of the core group, not to have Quark trashed as a result of a scammy appearing project...." The email goes on, but mainly posting it here to clarify that I don't agree with rebranding a coin that is scammy in appearance-
I am however in favor of what I highlighted in bold..
CH, the plan with MimicCoin is to launch a plain Quark Clone with zero features, not to publicize it, but mine the hell out of it, then introduce it to the community as the "newly found merge-mine solution", rebranding it and publicizing-
No I am not in favor of doing this technique at all- especially with lies surrounding it... just for the record!
EDIT: adding this for the record also: http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/2br13q/a_few_days_ago_i_commented_on_a_quark_clone_and/cj9m97d |
|
|
|
Guys i have nice idea how to how to increase the attractiveness of the quark for miners and newber.
use the formula
block_reward = log2(difficulty)
for example if difficulty = 1024 then block_reward = log2(1024)= 10.
it will be attractive to the masses and better for use )
I actually like an idea like this- I dont know if it is feasible (only meaning I don't think Max wants to change anything about Quark itself), but think something like this should at least be brought up to Max. We can bring up the topic at the next meeting. |
|
|
|
The Quark Wallet is no longer in beta mode.
And you are the best...  |
|
|
|
Wallet test Update from Max Guevera!:"This weekend I spent time on the Quark 0.9.2 upgrade, specifically the synchronised checkpoint feature. Most of the upgrade is done, but a lot of testing is still needed. The mining features still need to be ported to the 0.9.2 version. I did some testing on: 1. Syncing the block-chain from scratch 2. Sending coins from 0.8 wallet to 0.9 wallet 3. Sending coins from 0.9 wallet to 0.8 wallet 4. Sending coins from 0.9 wallet to 0.9 wallet 5. Synchronised checkpointing Please assist with additional testing where you can and report issues to me or Geoffrey. I made Windows builds of the latest version here (0.9.2r1 test1): 32 bit - https://www.dropbox.com/s/tmuonqp5ejh9o9v/quark092r1_w32_test1.zip64 bit - https://www.dropbox.com/s/q894lebpkb5z9iu/quark092r1_w64_test1.zipNOTE: This is a test release, so be sure to backup your quark data directory and wallet before running this version."
|
|
|
|
After a user request, the source of this coin was checked and pass on quality tests! NOTE: Only accept this seal when is posted by user sr.machadoDonations: 1Nz8kcPrUYVcqdqUBWVcbqMg6SdbkeuPsEhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=701469Best Regards
And here is his Quark Address: QRK ADDRESS: QV1H1HqsXF3PYctfNtdTr2NuqCaEZNz22k
(from post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=701469.msg7928858#msg7928858)
If you like Sr Machados work and think he is doing a service to the crypto community for weeding out scam coins from legit coins, you will happily donate to him!! |
|
|
|
Thank you very much Sr. Machado! Glad to receive your seal of approval:) We welcome trollers to challenge or try different angles to disprove you, as this will be the natural course of things in the process of clearing Quarks name once and for all! Meantime, if you want to post your official QRK address here(or let me know if we can use the one from Twitter), and I will post it as the official donation address on my OP thread on Reddit-- Thank you again:D Thank you, remember that this service is for free, If the community want to donate I'll accept and be happy! BTC ADDRESS: 1Nz8kcPrUYVcqdqUBWVcbqMg6SdbkeuPsE QRK ADDRESS: QV1H1HqsXF3PYctfNtdTr2NuqCaEZNz22k Thank you very very much Sr!! I will post this on my OP on Reddit-- By the way, it didn't take very long for the trollers to come did it, lol?!!!. Well we will certainly welcome legitimate challenges and hopefully the people who troll just for the sake of trolling will simply go away:) |
|
|
|
Thank you very much Sr. Machado! Glad to receive your seal of approval:) We welcome trollers to challenge or try different angles to disprove you, as this will be the natural course of things in the process of clearing Quarks name once and for all! Meantime, if you want to post your official QRK address here(or let me know if we can use the one from Twitter), and I will post it as the official donation address on my OP thread on Reddit-- Thank you again:D |
|
|
|
I always knew answers would come from this forum - the crickets where chirping back at the "Bitcoin Foundation" camp - and there is a total void of focus on anything technical (post takeover) its like a cliff you can stare at.
this is why i have always supported the torrent of shit & "junk DNA" that is thrown out onto this forum, because sifting though all that shit will be found little gems like this.
and in effect that spam speeds up this process.
that is the open source system way, we all owe this guy, and we should give what we can.
Digital Industry, Lets raise a bounty so Sr. Machado can put these Quark scam claims to rest once and for all!!: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7846392#msg7846392Sr. Machado, excellent work- Would you look at Quark for us (see link above)? |
|
|
|
That's a shame, I was really hoping for some good-spirited competition  You're really a MF guy, thief, scammer! Preminer ninja! **Note: "Coffeecoin" is the dev from CFC2, not the "Coffee_coin" dev from this scam coin, lol I know it is confusing, because he stole the coin name and also the dev's name ...So I think the CFC2 dev was making a joke above:) Other than that, Very amazing find, Sr. Machado!! Excellent, excellent work you have done here!!! We Definitely need more people like you doing this kind of work for the Crypto community... If you are looking for another "Scam-Buster" call, I would love to see you do your work for the Quark community! Quark has had numerous, relentless posts from trolls claiming that Quark was a premine, and with manipulation of the blockchain.. If you could do your work and sniff out the falseness of these accusations once and for all, the Quark community will tip you generously--I can assure you..(I am project team leader of the Quark Foundation, and will do my best to see to it). What do you say to this Sr.? P.S....Here is an example quote from one of our trolls: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7846392#msg7846392If you could prove him wrong we would be most happy to remove this thorn from our side (and raise a bounty for you)!! |
|
|
|
Thread is heating up ;p
wait for new forum.... coming very soon.....tihis will be huge!
Can't wait till it opens Cashmen!!! July 21 would be a good day...Just sayin' !!!
|
|
|
|
Coinerer, you are remarkably persistent with your new wallet compilations, however, as QuarkFX stated, no one in their right mind is going to trust or download a wallet like this--Would you like to work on the social wallet? I know you have stated you do not have C++ experience, but if you are truly interested in helping out I can place you in touch with the right person(s). Otherwise... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
