I don't think there is enough computing power in the universe to get to that point.

Anyway, to get the difficulty from a target, you divide 0x00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 by the target.

If the target was 0x000000...0001, your difficulty would be 0x00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 which in decimal is approximately 2.695953529101131*10^67

You can read more about this here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty

Are you shilling for the owner of that website, or are you the owner of that website? Clearly you're trying to boost his sales.

Well it isn't mathematical so I don't see how there could be a mathematical proof.

If you go by the assumption that a person is always trying to gain value, then you either have to have some disincentive to double-spend, or make it economically difficult to double spend (require a massive amount of mining equipment to double-spend after a few confirmations).

I'm guessing you're referring to 0 confirmation double spends. There is a theoretical solution to this, which is to have a disincentive to double-spending. In this theoretical update/cryptocurrency, if a miner finds two transactions that comprise a double-spend, the miner is given the entire transaction. This makes the double-spender not want to double-spend. In addition to this, the seller could require that the buyer have a certain amount of change. For example, the transaction could give $50 to the seller, $0.01 to the miner and $50 back in change. If he attempted a double-spend, he would lose as much as the seller.

Yes, a blocks hash must be below a certain value to receive the block rewards. Along with that, the next block has the previous blocks hash inside of it, confirming that that is the previous block.

Doesn't Quark use sha2 for transaction IDs? If so, doesn't that mean if sha2 which bitcoin uses is broken, then the hash quark uses for transactions will be broken as well?

It looks like BlueMatt interpreted "wanna work on coinpunk" as him asking for developers for a project rather than explaining that he wanted to work on it.

netg also responded inappropriately:


He probably wouldn't have been banned if he hasn't spammed 5 lines afterwards. I still think the ban and initial response were unnecessary though.

You are delusional if you think Quark is under attack by the US Government.

Inb4 accusations of shilling, general logical fallacies, "sheeple", etc.

ASICs would find it slightly more difficult for multiple algorithms, but it's not about how hard it is, it's about how much more powerful an ASIC will be. GPU mining is difficult for some of these algorithms, so the network won't be as protected from 51% attacks by the GPUs.

My mistake, I was looking at the top day volume.

You can't determine how much money to richest people have by looking at the top wallets. You can own more than one wallet


Ultimately I believe there has to be a purpose for a coins existence, some advantage over all the other coins that exist. Right now it is just used for speculation. The reason Bitcoin has a high price is because people see value in it as a currency, people are right now buying millions of dollars of goods and services with it, and in the future they will buy even more. What advantage as a currency does Quark have? I don't see any, which is why I believe the reason it has a high price is because speculators are betting on other speculators buying it.

Multiple hashing algorithms only delays the ASICs. Bitcoin was fortunate enough to have their first ASIC creators distribute the hardware rather than attempt a 51% attack. Quark being unable to mine on GPU (if I understand correctly) makes them even more vulnerable to the jump from CPU to ASICs. Along with that, if the last-used hashing algorithm has a vulnerability, the mining will be ruined. Even if neither of those problems occur, multiple hashing algorithms is at most equivalent to sha256, not superior.


Looking at cryptsy, it has had a volume of 2 million in the time it has existed. This is the equivalent of the first 1000 blocks (1000 blocks were mined in the first 2 hours of mining).

In my opinion, having rewards halve in 3 weeks is a bad thing. I don't think a currency can succeed if a small handful of individuals control 90% of the currency. This is a problem with Bitcoin, especially Satoshi, but not to the same extent.

I believe the founder knew what he was doing when he made rewards halve in 3 weeks. He knew he would get a large chunk of that


It's really comes down to whether it serves any purpose other than speculation. When Apple issued stock it was so they could spend investors money on growing them company so they could pay them a dividend.

Madoff was only a counterexample to your claim that if the market says it's expensive, then it's a good idea. Quark has clearly been pumped, I may be wrong about the dump part, but many people got in early and are advertising it, making subreddits, forum posts, etc.

Sounds good.

>read back more than 1 post regarding why i said QRK is not inferior in anyway to the other coins you mention. What you are quoting is not the reason i have given time and time again.
That's because I explained why that comment was wrong and you responded with saying I was upset I didn't have any.

The market decided that Bernie Madoffs fund wasn't a scam for much longer than Quark has existed.


>TELL ME HOW QRK IS INFERIOR - that is my challenge to you
It has lower hashing power than Bitcoin and has no advantages. Using 6 different hashing algorithms just makes the network vulnerable to someone who makes specialized hardware.

You seem to be mistaking crying for pointing out flaws, but you seem to be so delusional about quark that you assume anyone who points out flaws in it is "crying".

>STICK TO THE FACTS - is all i ask.
I have been contradicting your points using facts. You have been speculating (with no factual evidence) and padding your comments with insults (which shows that your arguments don't hold weight on their own).

Do you really think me calling you a noob would make my argument sound stronger? It just is childish. I have never seen someone above 15 act this way.

I have given you the facts and you have responded with name calling and ad homenim. If you would like to actually understand what is wrong with Quark you should look at these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin#Redundancy

I am done responding until you can provide a response not based on logical fallacies and name calling that shows you have some knowledge of economics and cryptocurrencies.

So wouldn't this mean that it doesn't take 80ms per kb to propogate because the miners will instantly have new blocks and will start mining on the new ones?

>I just told you in baby speak why quark is not inferior to other coins, please go back and read.

Here is your comment:

>LOL just obvious to you and every other person that missed out on QRK.
This doesn't address why quark isn't inferior.

>The market does not seem to find it obvious at all.
This doesn't address why quark isn't inferior.

>The creator does not hold most of the coins, that is only the story you tell yourself and others to feel better.
The creator and his buddies do hold most of the coins, he made rewards halve every 3 weeks for a reason.


>Sorry i stick to the facts - you would not be here crying if you had some QRK simple as that. Buy some and feel better about yourself.
This post and your comment history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92110) prove that you are only here to pump Quark. Quark is a scamcoin, but I guess if you can make money off of it, it doesn't matter to you.

It seems like every altcoin pumpers counter-argument against any faults in the currency is claiming the user didn't get in early. Why don't you try some logic and not ad hominem.

I didn't get in on Bitcoin or Namecoin before they took off, but I still see the merits in each.

Quark is an obvious scamcoin. There isn't an advantage to using 6 different hashing algorithms, it is just what they had to throw together to make it unique. Please don't try that circular logic "Quark will become popular because it's popular". Actually go ahead, when the creator dump it's going to be a fun to watch.

Nxt's source code isn't what I'm worries about personally. It's the fact that it has a 100% premine.

Name one person in the thread who said that

Not really. The cost of a PoS attack will remain very high until the end of time.

Having it rest on miners and energy is good because the miners actually have to use a resource, there is a cost unlike PoS 51% attack.

Since the cost of $0.80 is from competition, there is a solution to these costs.

Simply have bitcoind add a penalty of 80ms * (num transactions seen by client - num transactions in block).

This will make transactions cheaper while keeping mining power constant.

Based on the post below, he premined 785,900.

He will probably try to say the pool did it, but that is a pretty crappy pool if they never got the difficulty above 1.