Quark discussed on Keiser Report w Bill Still

[lebaron93]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

[victzhang]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

Good video, thanks for sharing!

[pmm123]

nice thx

[Netnox]

Wish i buyed at 12 it's going up pretty rapid

[Ximp]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

Nothing informative about it, just an ignorant man peddling his wares. Literally the only "plus" he spoke about Quark was it's extra "security". He neglected to mention the massive distribution problems and insta-mine scam that is Quark.

[tubbyjr]

Not to mention, anyone with a preliminary understanding of cryptography, knows that hashing or encrypting by several algorithms, is less secure than one single secure algorithm. So their whole premise of being more secure is false.

[gnode]

Not to mention, anyone with a preliminary understanding of cryptography, knows that hashing or encrypting by several algorithms, is less secure than one single secure algorithm. So their whole premise of being more secure is false.

how so??

[gnode]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

Nothing informative about it, just an ignorant man peddling his wares. Literally the only "plus" he spoke about Quark was it's extra "security". He neglected to mention the massive distribution problems and insta-mine scam that is Quark.

I agree. And when Max asked him about the premining, his answer was that this way the distribution of coins was more equal. But it is in fact doing the opposite. Only a few really large holders. Even Max seemed a bit confused by the answer.

proof that there are only a few large holders?

[gnode]

I will save you some time and give you the link

http://quark.freeforums.net/thread/368/auditing-block-chain

yep i looked nobody holds more than 1%.

[Netnox]

I will save you some time and give you the link

http://quark.freeforums.net/thread/368/auditing-block-chain

These fud attempts are getting you nowhere, you know damn well that this goes for all the cryptos and the fact that Quarks distribution is already better than peercoin, same as name coin and almost catching up to ltc after only 5 months tells that it's model is working well. Not to mention as max and bill said its stabilising better and not as volatile like we are used

[Satyre_Noir]

Not to mention, anyone with a preliminary understanding of cryptography, knows that hashing or encrypting by several algorithms, is less secure than one single secure algorithm. So their whole premise of being more secure is false.

how so??

Vitalik Buterin wrote a piece about Quark and it's security flaws, good read:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8972/quarkcoin-noble-intentions-wrong-approach/

[gnode]

Bill Still mentions this article.

[gnode]

Qrk update by Bill Still


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_hA5dTvtI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhZRoC9bMegevAxFmee1oSA

[cryptohunter]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

Nothing informative about it, just an ignorant man peddling his wares. Literally the only "plus" he spoke about Quark was it's extra "security". He neglected to mention the massive distribution problems and insta-mine scam that is Quark.

There are no longer distribution issues. Certainly no more than any other of the top tier coins have. The insta-mine was actually a positive in this case. It ensured mass dumping for months, hence a more widespread distribution than most non-instamined coins.

Coins that have tried to launch more fairly have actually failed harder. Large mining farms hoover up all the low diff coins anyway, that can be seen as fair i guess since they are investing more in hardware and electricity, however it is not better for the distribution.

Super instamined coins have in the past generated little interest since nobody has any apart from a few. The price therfore drops off to nothing and the miners dumped for what they could get. Probably less than electricity. The only instaminers that have gained are those that held their coins through months of them being worth virtually zero. That is not many of them since they all like to dump first day of exchange.

[NUFCrichard]

I don't agree about the instamining, bu I don't have a good answer either.
The fact that alts weren't popular when quark was released shouldn't be held against it and most quark clones are worse than quark itself for fairness. Still the distribution isnt good for a coin that advertises how well distributed it is.

[digitalindustry]

Decent discussion about cryptos, and Quark in particular, between Max Keiser and Bill Still.

http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-538-max-keiser-443/

Nothing mind blowing but 'still' informative.

Nothing informative about it, just an ignorant man peddling his wares. Literally the only "plus" he spoke about Quark was it's extra "security". He neglected to mention the massive distribution problems and insta-mine scam that is Quark.

There are no longer distribution issues. Certainly no more than any other of the top tier coins have. The insta-mine was actually a positive in this case. It ensured mass dumping for months, hence a more widespread distribution than most non-instamined coins.

Coins that have tried to launch more fairly have actually failed harder. Large mining farms hoover up all the low diff coins anyway, that can be seen as fair i guess since they are investing more in hardware and electricity, however it is not better for the distribution.

Super instamined coins have in the past generated little interest since nobody has any apart from a few. The price therfore drops off to nothing and the miners dumped for what they could get. Probably less than electricity. The only instaminers that have gained are those that held their coins through months of them being worth virtually zero. That is not many of them since they all like to dump first day of exchange.

+ 1

- I'd call it quick distribution - what confuses a lot of people is the aspect where , because it did not go to exchange i.e it didn't have a "buzz"  

- if you look at FTC it had huge block  rewards at the start then went straight to BTC-e  - certainly not ideal for the long term. (because FTC then stabalised back to a "Bitcoin and Litcoin" mining model so people could justifiably perhaps be angry and say well - this huge reward at the start gave these people an advantage becauce:

1.  It then went straight to a major exchange and
2. then moved back to a "standard" distribution model - making it look like it was more nefarious than distributive.   

- Quark was a different information vector -  some humans have a hard time thinking about intangibles and how other humans feel or think , this is a product of T.V brain damage and a bad western diet -

that aside - Quark was not and is still not on any fiat exchange , adding further to the almost perfect distribution it will have -  

lets do that Audit again in a few weeks !  : D

[PinkPotatos]

Post started by a sock puppet for sock puppets.

[digitalindustry]

Post started by a sock puppet for sock puppets.

thing about sock puppets is but - after a point they start to help !   : D

[btcprice]

Post started by a sock puppet for sock puppets.

It's ok to cry.