[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[digitalindustry]

We found some bugs in the paper wallet generator:
http://www.qrkwallets.org/

The bugs are first noticed when one cannot take a private key generated from one of the pages and place it in the "Wallet Details" page to get the details of that key.  This indicates that there are four lines of code that need to be changed:

From Line 5280 in the qrkwallets.org html file:

Code:

// 51 characters base58, always starts with a '5'
	ECKey.isWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0x80) ?
							(/^5[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^9[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key));
	};

	// 52 characters base58
	ECKey.isCompressedWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0x80) ?
							(/^[LK][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^c[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key));
	};

Several things are leftover from bitcoin code, such as the '5' and the L and K and the 0x80.  It should be changed to this:

Code:

	// 51 characters base58, always starts with a '7'
	ECKey.isWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0xBA) ?
							(/^7[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^9[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key));
	};

	// 52 characters base58
	ECKey.isCompressedWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0xBA) ?
							(/^[U][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^c[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key));
	};

Additionally there is still a link to the bitaddress.org github repo.

hey thanks for this feedback #E

so are you talking about the native code now? the Quark wallet ?

[1714695098]

1714695098

[digitalindustry]

ha ha i'm sorry to laugh guys but 'm hearing a lot of "save Quark" ha ha

when in the predicted model Quark wouldn't have been at this price at this time.

so what are we saving it from ?

a higher price ha ha?


However the Hash issue does need a solution, and we all need to work hard including myself on this !

i think we have the answer there we just need to agree on it.

[digitalindustry]

Just want to add my suggestions how to possible find a way out of the situations:

I am not against changing the code, not even massively like it would be the case with adding a superblock, but I am against the superblock as the only strategy to move out of this situation. People will see it as it is: an easy and probably desperate move to save Quark. I don´t see how that would help Quark even shortterm. I think we should go for a merge mining approach that integrates some structural changes and turn Quark back to a promising investment.

The basic idea was that people would mine Quark because it had enough value which isn´t currently the case and will probably stay like this for several years. That´s why I think we should look for a merge mining solution. However, I don´t see other usable cPoW coins who could be seriously used for that. Why not creating a composite coin that experiments with some of the new features that are currently out there. We could use it as a sort of test baloon and integrate the features that do well into Quark.

At the same time, I think (I mentioned that many times on the qrk.cc forum) we need to find a perspective for the foundation and rewrite the concept. I made proposals and I am willing to repeat them here as well if there is any interest.

some good ideas here !

[Coinmama2014]

We found some bugs in the paper wallet generator:
http://www.qrkwallets.org/

The bugs are first noticed when one cannot take a private key generated from one of the pages and place it in the "Wallet Details" page to get the details of that key.  This indicates that there are four lines of code that need to be changed:

From Line 5280 in the qrkwallets.org html file:

Code:

// 51 characters base58, always starts with a '5'
	ECKey.isWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0x80) ?
							(/^5[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^9[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key));
	};

	// 52 characters base58
	ECKey.isCompressedWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0x80) ?
							(/^[LK][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^c[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key));
	};

Several things are leftover from bitcoin code, such as the '5' and the L and K and the 0x80.  It should be changed to this:

Code:

	// 51 characters base58, always starts with a '7'
	ECKey.isWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0xBA) ?
							(/^7[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^9[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{50}$/.test(key));
	};

	// 52 characters base58
	ECKey.isCompressedWalletImportFormat = function (key) {
		key = key.toString();
		return (ECKey.privateKeyPrefix == 0xBA) ?
							(/^[U][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key)) :
							(/^c[123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{51}$/.test(key));
	};

Additionally there is still a link to the bitaddress.org github repo.

Yikes, thanks Hash E!
I will contact the person whom I believe might be able to help with this!

[Coinmama2014]

@cryptohunter isn't it a better idea for those investors you're talking about to simply create a development pot instead cheating and create a superblock out of nothing or companion coin ? The latters will bring very negative press while the former will prove that the investors care about Quark. I'm not an investor per se but I'm willing to donate monthly to any development fund publicly announced by the dev team.

Yes, i mean that would be way better. However that will not happen. People just don't donate. The logic is why donate to things that benefit the entire qrk community even those that don't donate anything. The superblock is simply a 10% donation from everyone if you want to look at it like that. That donation will be rewarded proportionally too so win win.

Sure i mean if every qrk investor would donate to a development pot that would be nice. ROI projects are really the only way to get investment that way though from my experience. Doge seems a special case, they seem to raise funds from super whales with ease.

QRK just lost another 10% today ..... that was the development pot right there? come on guys step up and do something before qrk is totally beyond help.

All the we are discussing possibly doing something that may help is not what the market wants to hear.

UPDATE ON DONATIONS FOR THE GUI PROJECT!!-
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DONATE TO THIs PROJECT and CHECK the latest updates here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/29pigg/testing_testingnew_quark_wallet_gui_in_the_works/

Coinmama 1k Qrk

Billy/undercard 5k Qrk (donating to his own project! does this count?! Sure does!! For double Karma points!!)

bronevik 5k

10 K from the foundation!!

1k Qrk from Quark Universe

P.S...
Care to change your mind about donations for Projects @Cryptohunter?

[Coinmama2014]

Hey everyone, please check out this post and comment/pledge, we have a new Concept GUI in the works:
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/29pigg/testing_testingnew_quark_wallet_gui_in_the_works/

Details:
"Hello Everyone!

I am pleased to announce that there is a concept GUI wallet  in the works by two of our core Quark community members:

Someguy1234...!! (C++ coder)
and Undercard!! (Graphics designer/ mobile wallet splashpage creator etc).


**GOAL: To make a sleek and attractive new wallet with unique features that will be  fun and  user friendly.**

This concept of this wallet project has been in the works for some time and has some new social and mining features that have been added to the Qt by someguy:D..(before the release of the new user interface itself).


We ask you to please test this wallet here and give feedback!!:
Download here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/omn0mwfcwt63xdr/quarkcoin-qt-social-2.3.exe

What additional features would you like to see? Suggestions?

***Also, if you believe in the power of the Quark community to get *important infrastructure projects* created- *please PLEDGE a donation* to this project to show your interest & support to keep it going!!***

Sample Images(without concept GUI "skins" attached):

IRC Quark U Chat image: https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5319249dee145b045b96a60b/5322ada25d3cdc77703507bf/1024x600/d6b4db99d4bbc24bb717ba51d75881bd/chat.png

IRC Quark U Chat image 2: https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5319249dee145b045b96a60b/5322ada25d3cdc77703507bf/1040x660/ddcb41dede0a88ff75dbc0d130672a63/Preview-1.JPG

Wallet Miner image: https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/5319249dee145b045b96a60b/5322ada25d3cdc77703507bf/1037x653/842586e26e5ab636602a0060eaecf56e/Preview-2.JPG"

So till now I have 2 issues, one is that the ctrl+tab is not working, and second when selecting send it sends my mouse pointer to send or if I click receive again it sends my pointer to export.
edit : also when I have a conversation with someone in the `social` tab I can't close it, could be useful to put a right-click and close option and also rightclick and whois on that user.
later edit: the copy ctrl+c also doesn't work and the hyperlinks inside the irc although they are highlighted and blue they don't open when I click on them...

- also when selecting a different conversation and then going back into the original channel/conversation it takes me to the top of the screen..

Can these be put in a to do list ?

as a future improvement can you add our hashrate into `mining` tab so that when we click start mining we can see whats the hashrate and other info like `a block was found x seconds ago`, and clickning on that takes us to qrk.blockr.io into that block details. what do you think ?

Maok,
I have written to the dev for the GUI(someguy123..)-But also is there any chance you can post on the official Reddit thread as well? http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/29pigg/testing_testingnew_quark_wallet_gui_in_the_works/

[quarkfx]

@Kolin

ha ha i'm sorry to laugh guys but 'm hearing a lot of "save Quark" ha ha

Yes Kolin, save Quark. I mean, Quark will most likely "survive" but I guess even to you it is not appealing to hold 247 millions of Quark and noone else wants to exchange it with you. As you may have noticed many people sold their Quarks and if you are going to laugh away problems that everyone else in the active community agrees exist then I can see more people turning their back on Quark. The hashrate issue is directly connected to price and trust in Quark, so yeah, we should and will do something about it.

@reRaise

Very interesting, i would be glad if you go into details.

Conditions:

A merge mining coin only makes sense to me if
a) there will be a prospect for a long-term value and
b) it is no direct competitor with Quark

This is why I am against a random roin that merge-mines. The coin should have a longer distribution scheme, let´s say 20 years and a different blockrate, say 3-6 minutes. This would make it distinguishable to Quark and avoid a fast boost with a short bust. When I said this could be an "experimental" coin I didn´t mean to think of it as Bitcoin Testnet but rather as a coin with a higher probability of hard forks when implementing new features.

To experiment on a different coin would sort of solve the discussion on whether we should change the Quark source code. As you know, some people wanted to push things forward and other were sceptical if that wouldn´t we a too high risk factor. To have a longer blockrate and distribution scheme would avoid the coin becoming a direct competitor with Quark as when it comes to adoption for many in-store trades 30 seconds would still be more attractive than 3-6 minutes and the inflation rate would be way higher as with Quark.

Challenges and Solutions:

Of course we need to take care that the coin is neither pumped nor dumped massively. If we want to be serious here, we should go for a currency that encourage community involvement rather than speculation as it happened several times with Quark. Even though premining has for good reason I think there is a way to use premine to guarantee a certain price stability and (yes) trust into the community, namely, if we dedicate 100% of the premine for community projects. I would call this approach "Community Premine":

We premine say 10% of the coin and slowly distribute it over say 3 years use it for the following cause:
a) Payout on discussion forum: We set up a fresh forum for Quark and "Experimental Quark" that substitutes forum.qrk.cc and has some sort of Activity measurement. Top 10 users are paid each months in that currency.
b) Payout on chat: We use a faucet to distribute the currency for people who chat on #quarkuniverse
c) Payout for bounties: a fixed amount is used for bounties where users can propose and vote for what is needed >> this affords a solid Foundation structure (will come back to this later on)
d) Payout for representants of the community
e) + more activity solutions

As you see, there is no premine used for the developer because I believe every premine payout to the developer will raise doubts  whether the developer want to enrich themselves. However, we need to and should pay the developers for their work, but I think we can do it differently:

We set up a pool with a fee of 1% that will be dedicated to the developers. Those of us who want to fund the developer agree on a mining plan that will give back to the developer. This way we actually pay for their work and give them shares of the currency at the same time, which will foster self-interest. We can also agree what their "base" work is and then pay them share of the bounties where every bounty needs to be democratically blessed by the Foundation.

Democratical Foundation:

I repeated my proposal on that many times and will do it here again: To get some stability into the community we need a Foundation that is elected and has power and capacity to lead. Currently we are dealing with a structure that is not very transparent. However, as far as I understand it from talks with most Foundation members there is a great interest to change this situation from both sides: community and foundation. Currently we have three to four working teams beside the Foundation (QuarkUniverse, QuarkPlanet, QuarkLabs and QuarkPress) that are dedictad to the development of Quark.

What can we do?

We renew the Foundation and make the teams integrated part of the community. Everyone can become part of the Foundation by paying a deposit (say an equivalent of 50-100 USD) that is refunded with a short puffer (say 4 weeks) if the person decides to leave the Foundation. By becoming part of the Foundation the person has the right to become and/or elect representants. Representants stay elected for 12 months. Those persons are also paid out of the premine (see above c).

This of course needs to be worked out which is why I believe we should gather active members for a range of 6 months to form an interim structure that prepares the change without getting paid.

This is the graphic that I made (where QuarkComm represents QuarkLabs and QuarkPress)



Please post your comments.


P.S.: No matter if you agree or disagree I would like to encourage everyone to make things happen. Some of our members managed to get in touch with Max and we have the chance to keep the dialogue alive. We shouldn´t waste it.

 

[silvermetal]

I see the possibilities what we can do with the merged mining coin for the Quark community as outlined by Quarkfx. Sounds really great.

What I don't yet see is the following:
- How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?
- How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?
- Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?
- How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

[quarkcheck]

Thanks quarkfx's proposal, coinmama and others(DI,VIC,reRaise etc) involved in this topic. Especially thanks cryptohunter for brought up the companion coin proposals etc
 
Yeah agree with silvermetal we still have a lot of things need to be ironed out, a lot of possible solutions need to be openly discussed.

I really like quarkfx's "Community Premine" + merge mine(other members proposals) + a companion coin  with  continuous innovation features  idea, you could sort of  think it as a way of crowd funding for Quark Project.

But since this will not be a quick nor easy answer we need more community members to actively involved and discuses it as well as general consensus!

So my proposal is why don't we, reverse the order,  do the Democratical Foundation part first?  If we can get enough interests and community collective intellectual brain power we sure can come up solutions for those difficult questions above..

My two Quarks

 

[quarkfx]

Thanks quarkfx's proposal, coinmama and others(DI,VIC,reRaise etc) involved in this topic. Especially thanks cryptohunter for brought up the companion coin proposals etc
 
Yeah agree with silvermetal we still have a lot of things need to be ironed out, a lot of possible solutions need to be openly discussed.

I really like quarkfx's "Community Premine" + merge mine(other members proposals) + a companion coin  with  continuous innovation features  idea, you could sort of  think it as a way of crowd funding for Quark Project.

But since this will not be a quick nor easy answer we need more community members to actively involved and discuses it as well as general consensus!

So my proposal is why don't we, reverse the order,  do the Democratical Foundation part first?  If we can get enough interests and community collective intellectual brain power we sure can come up solutions for those difficult questions above..

My two Quarks

 

Hai, I would love to have that Foundation but my experience tells me that we will loose a lot of time if we first try to create a renewed Foundation. It´s simply more complicated (paper work!) than releasing a companion coin (even though that will also be complicated to do). Setting up an interim team that prepares the rest sounds to me more realistic - especially as this is currently more or less the case - and I have no doubts we can involve the community by inviting them to the discussion. Maybe post a link on Reddit.

Also, even if we had a working Foundation, we can´t decide easily , we first need an agreement with a developer, which is why I think we should find an agreement, work it out, look if we find motivated developers and then do it.

Yeah, do it!

[digitalindustry]

Yes Kolin, save Quark. I mean, Quark will most likely "survive" but I guess even to you it is not appealing to hold 247 millions of Quark and noone else wants to exchange it with you. As you may have noticed many people sold their Quarks and if you are going to laugh away problems that everyone else in the active community agrees exist then I can see more people turning their back on Quark. The hashrate issue is directly connected to price and trust in Quark, so yeah, we should and will do something about it.

i can answer all that , no problem.

I'm pretty certain I know who sold and it wasn't that many people, because most of group "non tech' did take Bills advice and didn't throw the house in.

as soon as a name that "group Tech" recognized was involved "Max K" they held and new BTC holders from the alt community came in.

they then sold out - and some of the original sub 200 sat "traders" sold , and here we are, hash is nominal and i'd like it higher , but mostly i'd like to try this solution we are hashing out for other reasons.

but we will develop as we go.

[digitalindustry]

I see the possibilities what we can do with the merged mining coin for the Quark community as outlined by Quarkfx. Sounds really great.

What I don't yet see is the following:

- How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?
- How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?
- Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?
- How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

- How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?

I believe i have solutions here and yes it should be exchangeable.

- How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?

again sorry for being light on but i have a solution here,\i want to get into contact with Max first.

- Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?

not specifically, but i think it will be inevitable.

- How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

this is a great idea it is some work - but it would be great !

[quarkfx]

I'm pretty certain I know who sold and it wasn't that many people, because most of group "non tech' did take Bills advice and didn't throw the house in.

"Pretty certain" is not enough for assuming it is this way. I saw many people selling off because they lost trust in Quark. I saw active Quarkers getting inactive. I don´t care who it is ("non tech" "tech" whatsoever) but I care for the reason, and the reason is that there was a lack of activity from the development side.

Your argumention doesn´t take into account that we need an active community more than anything else/ as if the Quark would just survive because it is good but that is not the case. It won´t.  Again: I followed all relevant forums and I know who became inactive because things were not moving forward. Handwaving is not the solution, it is the cause of our situation now and I personally won´t accept that to happen again. We have a momentum now, we shouldn´t waste it.

Now let me answer @silvermetal

How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?

Needs to be on exchanges, sure. Bittrex could be a good point to start. It is also possible that we woud need to create giveaways to get it on other mayor exchanges.

How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?

Well, why is it attractive to mine at all? We need to offer something, most important: a perspective. If the coin is good and we build a solid framework then people will jump on board.

Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?

From my perspective on cryptocurrencies in the future people won´t accept one coin but rather whole sets like Moolah, so it would be rather the question if we should push it onto those services and I think we should do that. Or else: why not?

How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

One wallet is a good idea. Beside this we can promote it on every channel we have in control (Facebook, Twitter, Homepage, Reddit, etc. pp.)

[stompix]

I see the possibilities what we can do with the merged mining coin for the Quark community as outlined by Quarkfx. Sounds really great.

What I don't yet see is the following:
- How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?
- How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?
- Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?
- How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

As long as a coin has some value (even if it used for quark only) there will be people exchanging it for btc or ltc and eventually for other goods.

You can't stop a free market.

[quarkfx]

I see the possibilities what we can do with the merged mining coin for the Quark community as outlined by Quarkfx. Sounds really great.

What I don't yet see is the following:
- How can the merged mining coin get value (will it be present at exchanges)?
- How will it attract miners to mine for the merged mining coin?
- Do you want merchants to accept the merged mining coin?
- How will it be visible that Quark has a merged mining coin (possibility to hold both coins in one wallet?)

As long as a coin has some value (even if it used for quark only) there will be people exchanging it for btc or ltc and eventually for other goods.

You can't stop a free market.

True, and I mean, what value have 99% of all coins if not speculation? The real value is the community and their actual capability to create innovative things & to convince others.

[reRaise]

Conditions:

A merge mining coin only makes sense to me if
a) there will be a prospect for a long-term value and
b) it is no direct competitor with Quark

This is why I am against a random roin that merge-mines. The coin should have a longer distribution scheme, let´s say 20 years and a different blockrate, say 3-6 minutes. This would make it distinguishable to Quark and avoid a fast boost with a short bust. When I said this could be an "experimental" coin I didn´t mean to think of it as Bitcoin Testnet but rather as a coin with a higher probability of hard forks when implementing new features.

To experiment on a different coin would sort of solve the discussion on whether we should change the Quark source code. As you know, some people wanted to push things forward and other were sceptical if that wouldn´t we a too high risk factor. To have a longer blockrate and distribution scheme would avoid the coin becoming a direct competitor with Quark as when it comes to adoption for many in-store trades 30 seconds would still be more attractive than 3-6 minutes and the inflation rate would be way higher as with Quark.

Challenges and Solutions:

Of course we need to take care that the coin is neither pumped nor dumped massively. If we want to be serious here, we should go for a currency that encourage community involvement rather than speculation as it happened several times with Quark. Even though premining has for good reason I think there is a way to use premine to guarantee a certain price stability and (yes) trust into the community, namely, if we dedicate 100% of the premine for community projects. I would call this approach "Community Premine":

We premine say 10% of the coin and slowly distribute it over say 3 years use it for the following cause:
a) Payout on discussion forum: We set up a fresh forum for Quark and "Experimental Quark" that substitutes forum.qrk.cc and has some sort of Activity measurement. Top 10 users are paid each months in that currency.
b) Payout on chat: We use a faucet to distribute the currency for people who chat on #quarkuniverse
c) Payout for bounties: a fixed amount is used for bounties where users can propose and vote for what is needed >> this affords a solid Foundation structure (will come back to this later on)
d) Payout for representants of the community
e) + more activity solutions

As you see, there is no premine used for the developer because I believe every premine payout to the developer will raise doubts  whether the developer want to enrich themselves. However, we need to and should pay the developers for their work, but I think we can do it differently:

We set up a pool with a fee of 1% that will be dedicated to the developers. Those of us who want to fund the developer agree on a mining plan that will give back to the developer. This way we actually pay for their work and give them shares of the currency at the same time, which will foster self-interest. We can also agree what their "base" work is and then pay them share of the bounties where every bounty needs to be democratically blessed by the Foundation.

Democratical Foundation:

I repeated my proposal on that many times and will do it here again: To get some stability into the community we need a Foundation that is elected and has power and capacity to lead. Currently we are dealing with a structure that is not very transparent. However, as far as I understand it from talks with most Foundation members there is a great interest to change this situation from both sides: community and foundation. Currently we have three to four working teams beside the Foundation (QuarkUniverse, QuarkPlanet, QuarkLabs and QuarkPress) that are dedictad to the development of Quark.

What can we do?

We renew the Foundation and make the teams integrated part of the community. Everyone can become part of the Foundation by paying a deposit (say an equivalent of 50-100 USD) that is refunded with a short puffer (say 4 weeks) if the person decides to leave the Foundation. By becoming part of the Foundation the person has the right to become and/or elect representants. Representants stay elected for 12 months. Those persons are also paid out of the premine (see above c).

This of course needs to be worked out which is why I believe we should gather active members for a range of 6 months to form an interim structure that prepares the change without getting paid.

This is the graphic that I made (where QuarkComm represents QuarkLabs and QuarkPress)



Please post your comments.


P.S.: No matter if you agree or disagree I would like to encourage everyone to make things happen. Some of our members managed to get in touch with Max and we have the chance to keep the dialogue alive. We shouldn´t waste it.

Sounds great quarkfx and very well though, especially the part on developer earnings which i believe is the first time i see it explained this way. I like how you made the distribution model longer on this one which means more miners will join which means more supporters and a bigger community. Although have you thought about which algorithm and should it be ASIC resistant and Quarks algo? I think botnets should not have a chance to mine.

10% community premine sounds good, however some might be negative about it so you need to shine extra light into this matter than the average coin announcement Thread. I think with the proper explanation it's acceptable

Have you also though about how many coins will be created?

Also can you explain about the benefits the merge mined coin will give to Quark?

For the rest i'm pretty excited about this and pretty sure it will raise attention. People tend to rely a lot on the core members behind a coin and look for interaction with them. This gives them lots of trust as well, so hopefully this part won't be underestimated.

[quarkfx]

@reRaise

10% community premine sounds good, however some might be negative about it so you need to shine extra light into this matter than the average coin announcement Thread. I think with the proper explanation it's acceptable

Yep, I think that, too. I mean, the main negative things about premine is:

a) most people do it to enrich themselves without promising anything and the full ability to dump it all - that is not acceptable. It is much different if a treasurer of a foundation is in charge (as long as that person is reliable - we need to find ways to guarantee that)
b) there were premines that were even hidden from the community - this is nothing but stealing from everyone. Community premine would be a way to give back to the community and reward not only miners but also those who are active in the community.

Have you also though about how many coins will be created?

No, this was just an initial idea and it needs to be figured out what is best. I think the length of distribution should be related to the time we expect it will take the society to accept crypto + more time where even Joe the plumber can mine. You can even think about concepts like Aircoin (failed in the end?) that adjust distribution in relation to value.

Also can you explain about the benefits the merge mined coin will give to Quark?

The main benefit is: hashrate. It is what is threatening Quark´s perspective and subsequently value and trust.

Maybe it is even possible to combine the superblock idea with the "companion coin" approach by handing over the superblock in relation to share holdings of the companion coin after a certain period (say 3 years) and by that merging the two coins eventually. (If Quark didn´t become solid in three years then it is not likely to become an accepted crypto, but yeah, could be more or less).

For the rest i'm pretty excited about this and pretty sure it will raise attention. People tend to rely a lot on the core members behind a coin and look for interaction with them. This gives them lots of trust as well, so hopefully this part won't be underestimated.

I hope so as well. I mean, I am an idea guy , I am just throwing around scenarios that someone else needs to work out - but in any way it is better if the community comes together, discusses and looks out for challenges and possibilities. Let´s discuss other solutions as well.

[maok]

Let´s discuss other solutions as well.

how about instead of creating a premine coin that brings nothing new, we raise a substantial development pot and seek devs who can implement a new technology like side chains which was mentioned first time in relation to bitcoin and altcoins but if Quark would be the first to implement this it would bring a real advantage over other coins.

[quarkfx]

how about instead creating a premine coin that brings nothing new

Sounds like ripping people, maybe I missed your point?

Implementing sidechains in Quark could be an alternative that would create interest, so it seems to be a plausible idea to discuss to me. But remember that raising funds is not so easy and developers need to be rewarded in some way.
 

[maok]

edited, i meant instead of your suggestion of 10% premine coin, instead lets bring some new technology into Quark like side chains