I've been using Klever wallet for a little bit less than a year now shortly after making an investment on $TRX and $BTT.

I was looking for a mobile wallet to hold these tokens, and ended up investing on $KLV as well, and that ended up bringing a massive return.

Since then, they have improved the wallet multiple times, bringing all sorts of other blockchains to it and an internal swap feature as well.

I never had any issue with it, and as far as I my personal experience goes, this is one of the best crypto wallets out there.

This sounds a lot like a story I heard from a very successful crypt-currency! Will oocook5u become the Satoshi of Datacoin?

The more FUD the lower the price will go, and to be honest, I would be buying loads if I had any more cash to invest.

Comkort does look sweet, wow! Did they made an announcement in regards to DTC, how do you know they will trade there?

There's no liquidity at Bter! When will Cryptsy adopt DTCs?

That makes me happy, buying time! 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that, truth is that all alt coins have lowered in value after the end of the BTC rally.

I guess people don't feel like trading on Bter, if gets to @1 I'm buying bulk.

I've just read on another thread started by oocook5u that DTC will innovate again by hosting web-applications. I'm not sure if I understood that clearly enough on a technical level, but that new way of using the storage characteristic seems even more exciting than just permanent storage.

Perhaps, DTC would be better served by dropping the "permanent storage" argument from its official communications, such as datacoin.info, twitter.com/datacoininfo, the announcement thread, and any other first point of contact with new users.

I think something on the lines of "data transactions" would sound a lot better as the PRIMARY argument for the coin. Actually, that is THE ESSENCE of DTC, and from a pure marketing point of view, even match with the acronym DTC.

So, if that change is made, anytime someone get to know DTC, they will know that is a coin that focus on the development of "data transactions".

Then, to complement that, a second page should be created on datacoin.info, entitled "types of data transactions", where DTC could list all POTENTIAL data transactions that MAY or MAY NOT be developed. On this page then, you could include things such as: permanent storage, self-hosted web applications, or anything else.

With that positioning, non-tech investors are going to see DTC as a coin with HUGE potential, many possibilities and alternatives. The coin will grown in value, the community will continue to grow, and then more crypto-enthusiasts are going to keep coming back to this and other threads to keep on suggesting more types of "data transactions".

That will help to build a strong participative community based on the POTENTIAL of the coin, and do not need to rely on one specific use of it.

The community needs to adapt the argument to serve the non-tech investors and non-tech crypto enthusiasts more appropriately:

Please take a look at the following arguments:

1. Ah! The very concept of what is legal or illegal can change with time, we shouldn't bother with that anyway!
2. But if DTC stops the permanent uploading to the blockchain, then where will Assange upload the next lot of secret documents?
3. It doesn't matter if some people upload files to the blockchain, if you don't have access to it, why are you worrying?
4. The files are going to be stored via steganography, so the file only exists for one who holds the key to it.
5. Anyone who uploads illegal files and keep the access keys to it would be incredibly stupid.

All of these are NOT good enough. Why?

They demand some sort of faith in the system or believe in a specific paradigm. (1,2,3 and 5) ...or they demand some sort of specific technical knowledge. (4)

Arguments that require some sort of faith in the system, or believe in a paradigm, are entirely useless. Some people will adopt those arguments, but the majority will not, and if the success of DTC is intrinsically related to bringing the masses to the coin, one MUST conclude these are weak arguments that will not help in the long term.

Arguments that require some sort of technical knowledge are GOOD, but ONLY if people are able to understand them. For instance, the very use of the word steganography is going to make loads of people run away from the coin. The argument itself is good, but it needs to be simplified to reach the masses.

I've been working in the advertising industry for 10+ years, and these are techniques that marketers have been successfully using long before that.

THAT is the EXACT kind of argumentation that non-tech investors want to see before thinking on investing large in DTC.

Wow! I would never thought of accomplish something like that. It seems DTC has more potential than I though at first. I wonder what else is coming!

That makes a lot of sense GreekBitcoin, but keep in mind that DTC is the only coin that focus on the blockchain storage potential.

Nobody looks at Bitcoin, Namecoin and think of it as a place to storage files, so nobody gets worried with illegal content.

DTC needs to deal with this fact because storage is the essential part of how people perceive the coin.

You sound like you do not appreciate the fact that people are posting their worries here. If you ask me, THAT makes no sense!

This is an open forum created to discuss crypto-currencies and it seems like that's exactly what we are doing here. This thread is design to receive commentary from all sorts of people, some are going to be good, and some are going to bring attention to all sorts of problems. The very success of DTC depends on people doing that.

How can one fix a problem, if one does not know the problem exists?

If DTC has no real issue with hosting illegal content, why so many people seem to avoid discussing this topic? If DTC has no problem with illegal files, why you suggest I should not post my worries here, and instead get in touch with a laywer? THAT makes no sense whatsoever!

Am I the only one talking about that issue? You only need to read the thread to see how many people mentioned the illegal files issue. The truth is that as long as people like you keep treating these worries as a minor inconvenience, you will keep pushing people away from DTC.

If my suggestion sound non-sensical to you, then something else must be done to bring those people like me to your side. If one can convince me that the illegal issue is not really an issue, I will promptly invest and promote the coin. Until now, none of the arguments were strong enough to accomplish that.

Perhaps, what this community really needs is a group of lawyers to come here, and add their own two cents on the topic. Do you know any that would do that?

I think the team behind DTC should listen to what the crypto-community have to say. I believe that DTC has huge potential, and the community is providing amazing feedback. Considering a minor change in the initial concept could actually make it even more successful.

The MAJOR value in Datacoin is that it positioned itself as a coin made for STORAGE, and that, IS THE WINNING CONCEPT!

Considering the way this concept was developed, it has end up creating two major issues: (1) the potential use for illegal files, and (2) the bloating of the blockchain. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the second issue is what is holding Cryptsy from start trading it in its platform.

Here is how I see this coin...

DTC should become the ultimate database of torrent files. That would be an extremely popular way of accomplish storage in crypto-currency.

That would solve problem number (1) and (2) at the same time. DTC would never be hosting any illegal files, just torrents (which are just links), and the blockchain would stay light as feather. Anyone could benefit from it by using a special block explorer to search for files.

This solution would never bloat the blockchain, and nobody would host illegal files in their computers. An ELEGANT solution, if I may!

Now, considering the above implementation, a special parameter could be added to DTC to define the file as hidden from public. That would prevent from ever appearing on the block explorer search results, so these hidden files would be only available for people who knew how to find them with a special access key. (I believe a crypto-expert can ship in to improve this concept to something better)

What we all should understand very clearly is the following...

People will RUSH to DTC if they understand is a reliable system for storage, but they will RUN FROM IT if they think they have any chance of being associated with the hosting of illegal files. This issue CANNOT be avoided with technical arguments, the community is being extremely vocal about it, and it MUST be addressed seriously. The team behind DTC development MUST find a solution for that to succeed.

Here's another way of putting this...

The success of DTC is directly related with convincing a massive amount of regular users and non-tech investors to adopt the coin. They ARE NOT GOING to invest in DTC if they think they think that to be something risky. THAT IS A FACT and that's why the community is so vocal about it.

What would you rather have? Keep the original concept with nobody investing in the coin, or make a small change and end up bringing the masses? Think about that.

I agree with some of the improvements you are suggesting, specially the bit about being able to overwrite the files, I think that is a much elegant solution than simply storing all files permanently. First thing that came to my mind was: —What if I save the wrong file? That would annoy me forever!

When I first came across DTC, I actually thought we would be able to use it as some sort of reference directory, which people could use to upload torrent files. For a moment, I got insanely excited about DTC because that would make DTC the most popular coin amongst the whole crypto-currency community. THAT would be really, really, really interesting!

The fact that DTC is NOT being run for the purpose of pump'n'dump schemes is actually a good sign. In the least, it shows this coin has a professional and reliable team behind it, and if you combine that with the fact that DTC is actually innovating in the crypto-currency world, this coin is a MUST in anyone's investment portfolio.

With that said, whoever bought DTC at 0.00035 is in for a wealthy profit. I'm not going to be surprised when DTC reach 0.005 by the end of the year.

Considering the way you are expressing yourself, it looks like you're more keen on making investments for the very short term profit. If that is the case, you should probably be considering investing on something more risky, with a bit more volatility, such as: DOGE, CAT, LUCKY7, and similar alternative coins.

I've been following this thread since its start, and I also contributed a few times with my own two cents too. The way I see it, this is a very promising coin and you guys have been very active raising all sorts of potential cracks that need to be adressed to improve the coin. Keep up the good work guys.

I'm helping with the marketing side of a few other coins, including Quark, and when I see what you guys are doing here, it makes me wish I had find you first instead. The professionalism level here is impressive, so whenever Datacoin is ready for primetime, please let me know, and I'll be glad to help promote the coin.

I'm sure Datacoin is going to be very popular. Oh, and btw, my area of expertise is branding, so I have to say, the logo is spot on!

If Quark wants to outlive the buzz, and explore its true potential, negative feedback must be addressed with respect, transparency and professionalism. For what is worth, this is the ONLY way of showing the crypto-community and potential investors that Quark is actually a crypto-currency worth of their time and money.

But before I lead you into the interesting bit, here's a quick disclaimer:

I'm not a dev. I'm not a miner. I wasn't involved with Quark creation, neither with its launch. My interest in the coin lies in the fact that (1) I'm an investor, (2) I'm actively promoting Quark logo design contest, and (3) I'm an active advocate of crypto-currencies. I strongly believe crypto-currencies to be the future of money.

If you are an investor, please bear in mind this thread is merely a reflection of my own investigation, and consequently, reflects my personal opinions. You SHOULD NOT use it as an investment decision making document. Always keep in mind that there is considerable risk in crypto-currency, and you should never invest what you are not prepared to lose.

Now, back to the main point:

There has been some strong disagreements in between members of the crypto-community in regards to the distribution of Quarks. Essentially, some people have been attacking Quark for believing it to be a pre-mined coin while others have been defending the coin by justifying its distribution was very similar to Bitcoin, with no pre-mining.

I believe the very meaning of pre-mining is in question here, and all of this FUD may even be just a case of misinterpretation of the word.

A pre-mined crypto-currency is a currency that had its coins mined before being released to the general public, and while I wasn't aware of Quarks back when it was launched, anyone can read Quark's announcement thread and use the block explorer to inspect the first Quark block. If you do that, you'll see that mining of Quarks started exactly in the same day of the public announcement. The only conclusion I take from this quick analysis is that Quark wasn't pre-mined at all.

The mining of Quark only started after launch, not before, and for that reason calling Quark a pre-mined coin is essentially a semantic error; one that I'm also guilty.

One interesting point here. The use of the pre-mine argument is the most used reasoning to justify the FUD on Quark. If you do your own investigation, you'll find many people are bashing this specific point, but nothing much else. If not for this controversial issue, I wonder, would Quark be an absolute winner with all of the crypto-community?

Now, on the other hand...

If you continue on reading the same announcement thread, you'll also notice that many miners are reporting difficulties in mining the coin. Some miners are praising the results of their mining, but it seems that the majority is calling the launch of Quark a terrible release. In turn that gives the appearance that something shady is going on. I must reinforce the keyword "appearance" because I cannot tell if there were other miners who were successful but did not mind reporting their results.

Many of Quarks' supporters have been using this argument: —Would it be the case that miners who were unsuccessful in mining Quarks are just FUDing the coin for being frustrated with their own negative results? I don't exclude this possibility, but at the same time, I think is more productive to analyse the founder, not the miners.

So what potential conclusions one can take from this situation?

1. There's a chance that the founder has intentionally prevented miners from successfully mining the coin with the goal of building a larger pot for himself. As a matter of fact, that is actually suggested in the announcement thread by user orogen. (Highly speculative, but possible)

2. Is this a case of lack of professionalism? Maybe the founder lacks the communication skills needed to launch Quark in a way that satisfy the needs of the crypto-community. Who knows, perhaps he lacks the skills to build the tools that miners need to mine the coin appropriately. (Possible, but I don't expected that to be it.)

3. Another possibility is that Quark was launched by a developer with very limited resources and time, and while he possibly wanted to do his best, he was also expecting the crypto-community to chip in and contribute to make this a successful launch. Isn't that the spirit of open source? (I find no reason this to be true, but still highly possible.)

Which conclusion is the correct one? The short answer is, quite obviously, I don't know, but... —Does it matter?

Consider taking a pragmatic approach to this issue, the fact is that independently of how the launch came to be, Quark has already reached a huge audience. There is humongous support for this coin, and you know what, this is not a bad coin at all. I particularly like the blazing fast confirmations and the implementation of multiple, and random, algorithms.

Even if the coin founder built a bigger pot for himself after launching Quark, how would that differ from Bitcoin? Read this: Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin Fortune 100 Million. The fact that Satoshi had mined Bitcoin is widely accepted by the large crypto-community as the price Bitcoin users paid for the developer innovation. Shouldn't we think the same of Quark's founder? After all, without his initiative, Quark would not exist today. Period.

My Conclusions About Quark

I wouldn't be surprised to see QRK 3rd place in market cap in a just a few months from now, and end up being valued at $0.5 per coin. Why? It seems to me that the market doesn't care how Quark was launched, and the market don't give a blip if the founder has a large wallet. Investors are looking at Quark as a good investment choice, and they will invest.

On a related reasoning... many who invest in crypto-currencies never actually bother asking questions before choosing a coin to invest. (Actually, I wonder if anyone will care about reading this extremely long and potentially boring thread.) If people invest in non-innovative coins that are nothing more than clones such as Feathercoin, Terracoin and Dogecoin? Yes, Dogecoin! Why would they not invest in a coin like QRK that is actually innovating with 9 different algorithms? I don't think I need to explain it any further.

Now, when it comes to my own decisions: I will continue to invest in the coin in the short term, and I will continue to give my support to Quark logo design campaign until it reaches its conclusion. I don't see any reason to stop believing in the potential of Quark in the upcoming months, but the long term, well, that's another story.

Talking About the Future of Quark

In my own view, Quark was designed in such way that it has the potential to take LTC market cap position, especially if Btc38 decides to adopt the coin, and when that time comes, again, it wouldn't be a surprise if Quarks value reach $2.5 each. I invite you to visit ##quark IRC on Freenode to see how many people are currently working to accomplish that.

Will this future become reality? Well, here's where things should get a bit more serious, and I get back to the title of my thread. We should address negative feedback with respect, transparency and professionalism. Simply shunning those who have been FUDdding Quark with ironic responses, and a blatant showcase of disrespect, is not going to cut it anymore.

The irony is that all of this FUD only helped Quark to reach even larger audiences. I guess is really true that there's no such thing as bad PR, it seems that, thanks to the attention this coins has been getting, now you can buy and sell Quarks in four alt-crypto exchanges: Cryptsy, Bter, Coin-e and now on Vircurex too.

Finally, here's where I come to leave my public recommendation to the development team: —Do you want to see Quark become a success in the long term? Then pay attention to negative feedback, investigate the reasoning behind these claims, address them attentively, and keep on pushing for more transparency. Why not releasing an official roadmap on what's coming for Quark in the upcoming months? I'm confident that would be highly appreciated by many.

Borrowing a quote from our friendly neighborhood spider man: "With great power, comes great responsibility."

+1 to that.