I hadn't noticed. Good to see that it was finally retired until a working version is ready. Like I said back then, better to not have something than to have it half baked.

Reliable, honest, level headed people are not easy to find in crypto.

I think they've got to be found and recruited.

It won't be easy and certainly not something to be done overnight.

It's good to see you're still here plugging away.

Cheers

Okay. I finally get it. To make DiguSign work as was originally envisioned, right?

Was that ever discussed out in the open here on this thread (other than my harping on the fact that it didn't work as claimed) and I missed it?

Nah, doesn't work. No biggie though. Appreciate your getting back on this since I wanted to be sure that it wasn't something that had changed, or wasn't published, or something like that, but, yeah, that doesn't work, not for me anyway. Their thread looks dead, otherwise I'd post something there, just to give them the feedback, and if you have someone to relay the incident to, by all means, but it's not a pressing issue for me, so not to worry. Thanks!

Whatever changes are to be made have got to be extremely well thought out, as in "white paper" stuff. Defining the end user's needs to be met, deciding on available technology, answering the how's, why's and whether it's worth it, etc. of each possibility, have all got to be clearly spelled out. The worst thing you can do is to invest time and money into something that you end up changing (or throwing away - or worse yet, that gets thrown out with you and the bathwater by end users) later on. It's also nice to have that "road map" for the "average" person. I agree that the discussion needs to take place and this might just be as good a place as any for an open discussion about all initial ideas that everyone has to put forward. Rest assured that many a nut will come around to try and mess with people's minds, and that is another of many good reasons why we should plan on a calm, cool, collected and unhurried process if what we want is something that really is well thought out and thoroughly designed. Certainly not a task to be taken lightly or whimsically, rather something that the eventual finished product merits. Mission statements are basic helpful aspects of long term design and planning, for example, which in and of themselves can take time.

I would say that what is most important for me is first and foremost always staying as loyal as possible to the original ethos, which is that of a widely distributed decentralized cryptographic digital currency, the stronger, the better. That, in my opinion, is key to success given that its very design was to fulfill that precise end and meet the monetary security needs of the end user for whom it was designed. Originally it was to protect people's wealth from centralized and controlled fiat depreciation. What's the purpose and how do we best achieve it? That's my central question.

I think everything opens up from that fundamental starting point. Everything in between both ends of the spectrum is then on the table, with one extreme being something more like a vehicle for long term store of wealth, and the other being the idea that it should be something to be used to buy coffee at Starbucks . . . and everything in between, as I said. Different technologies might be more suitable for some designs than others. There's certainly a lot to be considered. It would also be nice to try and get the opinions of larger and longer term holders to the degree that that might be reliably possible.

Nevertheless, I think the immutable foundation from which to build is a widely distributed decentralized secure cryptographic digital currency that really is tried and true secure. That's my 2 cents on where we should begin. Spare me Ethereum hackable innovations. No sir. I'll let others play with testing as I prefer to use the stable version. I want "Known Good". And I think that when it comes to making sure their money is safe, that's exactly what the majority of people want. I think that being able to buy coffee at Starbucks comes in a distant 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, way down on the priority list, and it's a niche at that. (Nobody's going to have all the market - at least not for many years anyway - and all the big survivors are going to fill niches). You can't be everything to everybody, can you? Realistically thinking? And to throw caution to the wind in an attempt to do so? I think it's best to stay with what you do better than anyone else, and in this case I think that means being the best storage of wealth, first and foremost, and then build on that.

Anyhow, I think you've got a great idea there to start talking about what can be done to revive Quark, and to do my part to help get the discussion going, I hereby present these very humble opinions on what I think is the fundamental basis from which to work.  

I’ll agree that there are some, but I disagree with the idea that it’s generalized, and more so that it’s organized, and even more so that it’s organized and targeted . . . other than “teams” like MasterSchmuck’s, but hey, that’s mom and pop basement stuff. Of course I agree that those elements exist – I simply disagree with the degree.

Just like we disagree on many points. What I find convincing and unconvincing is clearly at odds with your point of view. What other people think is their choice. Let the facts speak for themselves and make them readily available.

And time will tell.

Cheers,

I'm serious. It's irrational to suggest that you are being unfairly singled out. You're bordering on a savior complex. Dash isn't that big and you guys just aren't that important. Try to step back and gain some perspective. Nobody is trying to hurt you. We're only talking about the facts as they relate to Dash. Nothing else. No ulterior motives. Don't shoot the messengers just because you don't like the message. Try to put out a counter argument message that is at least plausible. You'll start feeling a lot better about life. And probably make better decisions too. I promise you. A little objectivity goes a long way. It works wonders!

Paranoia is another telling symptom of denial. There's nothing of the sort that's become "so predictable". Get a grip.

@AzzAz, nice try with your response to the various issues listed by iCEBREAKER, but I was sincerely hoping for something a little more serious and a little less prejudiced.

I think you're probably right. And it sounds like the issue has been resolved as well. Smooth sailing ahead.

And you're not alone on your other points either.

It's got a lot of room to run before hitting the 1000:1 ratio.

I've tried everything from "quark c=MUE" to "c=mue" to "c=MUE" and everything in between (capitals, lower case, etc.) and I'm unable to mine just MUE. What on earth could I be doing wrong? My miners always end up multipooling!  

Add: Something else that's a little weird is that the total value of the "other coins" is subtracted from the total value of the MUE I actually mine.
      

And my question is whether DGB really even needs it at this time, and I have yet to see any forthright arguments explaining why it is, if it is.

It's not just the instamine. That was just an appetizer to see if it was possible to get some constructive dialogue going with some semblance of professionalism and seriousness when it came to the explanations and answers. It's not just about the instamine; it's about everything!



Come on. Give it a shot and start showing with facts just what there is in this litany that is incorrect.

Not all of you are horrible.

Most of you are marks.

You guys don't have the slightest clue.

First there’s Ryan Taylor who answers the “token instamine question” by saying that he “did a pretty interesting analysis” on the subject that he “published”, uhm, well he doesn’t know where, somewhere on BitCoinTalk. [mouths wide open] By his brief description of the “analysis”, I can understand why. [nervous laughs]

Are you guys high?

And then there’s Evan, and I shouldn’t say this since anyone with half a brain would learn from it and therefore benefit, but running that risk I’ll just say that he comes off as a self-styled second coming of Steve Jobs.  [laughs]  And there he was, with his 3 computers “in a closet” (why a closet I’ll never know but this guy does seem to be a little strange to begin with . . .) with its air-conditioning (sounds more like a grow operation to me [more laughs]). He comes off like the only air-conditioning in his life is in his head. [hilarious laughs]




Get that man out of the limelight. Get him a big beautiful BACK office with a Play Station and make sure no calls get through. Lose him as fast as you can!

If I were a professional image maker, that’s what I’d tell you, and I’d do it in no uncertain terms.

You guys come off like nutcases. Hey, call me a troll and I’ll wear it as a badge of honor coming from you. I’d be delighted.

I’m just calling it like I see it, with a little added humor that the ridiculous lends itself to. You should learn from it, but being the nitwits you give me the impression you are, I’m confident it will generate more of the same (perhaps even more amusing too . . . let’s hope so for our sake anyway).

I raise my hands to my head in disbelief. How could a bunch of goofs possibly pull off what you guys have?

Call me a troll. Come on? Please? Pretty please?


Edit: And this isn't hate. It's utter disbelief.

Lost in Space!

You and the person who asked the question both demonstrated zero interest in addressing the issues and only confirmed what I said about wishing the issue would just go away and that you could just sweep it under the rug.

You're obviously not interested in helping yourselves much less others others. Wasn't Evan bragging about helping others in that in the video?

I don't have the patience to work with people like you, but do I encourage all the "trolls" to continue doing their great work. They indeed are helping others! I would even go so far as to call it a public service!

And I will also "troll" whenever it's just too much.

Cheers

Okay, first it was a bug that caused the “issue”, and then there was a “vote” for Evan to keep his coins but they’re “really not his” because he’s “going to give them away” (oh, and BTW, what he declares is only 1/8th of the instamine), and then there are those folks who’ve done their own “due diligence” and come away saying that, whatever, alright, it’s no big deal, and it doesn’t matter to them. And then there is the clincher when Evan asks what the issue is with him mining after compiling and then publishing [with nobody else mining]. (Kind of that childish 'finders keepers' argument, or 'I was there first before you knew, nanny, nanny, nanny'.)

That’s not all taken from the video, but it’s a good compilation of the same old regurgitated spiel that’s published in the FAQs, repeated here, and so on, so there’s nothing much that's new here.

What’s new is that with Dash going to $100, there are a lot more people who are asking questions. That’s normal, wouldn’t you agree?

Now, does the fact that this issue has been supposedly dealt with a “zillion times” as someone else has said and is often expressed in similar words like you did with “many, many times” somehow make the facts disappear?

You have made your decision, and it’s okay with you. Ryan Taylor has made his decision, and it’s okay with him. That's great. I respect your decisions. However, the impression I get is that you all want to impose your decisions on everyone else. It seems like you don’t want anyone else to be able to make their own informed decision. The general attitude of the community is hostile to every and any question in this regard. It’s as though you don’t want to be bothered and you want the issue to ‘go away’.

If Ryan Taylor had the right to do his “due diligence”, why shouldn’t everyone else have that same right? Or do only those on the inside who agree have that right?

People who are new to Dash are only asking for the facts and reasonable explanations and answers so they can make up their own minds, and the people the "community" attacks as trolls are, by and large, the only people providing honest and reliable information with which to make informed decisions. To use Even Duffield’s words, “Like, what is the issue with that?”

It's not a question of hate. It's a question of exposing truthful facts that cannot be rebutted rationally.

Nobody hates you. That's just playing the victim when you have no reasonable counter arguments . . . similar to aggression and intimidation when you insult and attack.

Think about it for a second.


edit: On second thought, there are exceptions . . . when I think about the things MasterSchmuck said to "Duffy", they look like something close to hate - but consider the source and motivation: no facts and only manipulative aggression in that case (as well) most likely in his/her effort to influence price movement and scam a measly buck.