[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[coinerer]

Keep brainstorming ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, inviting devs for new clones,  ...

Quarks from bull to shit.   It is market.    From shit it has chance to grow again.

Continue and price will be good to buy soon.


Sorry

Don´t know what your agenda is, you seem repeating points (and smilieys) you already made.

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?



Brw, market reacted on the new brainstorming ideas. 

[1714670157]

1714670157

[1714670157]

1714670157

[1714670157]

1714670157

[1714670157]

1714670157

[quarkfx]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

[coinerer]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones,  ...

I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins.

I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189



Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now.

Another btw, it is better to not show number of visitors who visited http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/. At least nice number of countries, not number of visitors.

[reRaise]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones,  ...

I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins.

I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189



Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now.

How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over.

Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily.

[coinerer]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones,  ...

I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins.

I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189


Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now.

How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over.

Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily.

I am not sure, but is there real difference between opening wallet and opening miners. Opening wallet is energy efficient, mining is not.

Maybe solution should be using constant difficulty? Fixed chances (according to total number of opened wallets and time) to reward opening each wallet?

And for preventing simulations of opening many wallets, it should think about opening 1 wallet  per computer, network card?

[reRaise]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones,  ...

I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins.

I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189



Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now.

How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over.

Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily.

I am not sure, but is there real difference between opening wallet and opening miners. Opening wallet is energy efficient, mining is not.

Maybe solution should be using constant difficulty? Fixed chances (according to total number of opened wallets) to reward opening each wallet?

Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though?

Again if merge mining is the only solution then it should be done, quark with an insecure network won't go big. Quarks network security and popularity should rise before ShaqFu comes out.

Also merge mine (couple % premine) give us enough funds to work on new techs and add value to quark as well as securing the network. I mean quark hasn't much to lose anyway if you look at the price.

[maok]

Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though?

You're keeping your wallet open so that you can VOTE and maintain a distributed power, that was Satoshi's initial idea which has later derailed into only tens of miner power houses to hold Bitcoin security, which at the moment they have the incentives to keep it but what'll happen when a few persons from those companies decide to switch the power upside down. Also what will happen when Bitcoin is no longer viable to mine ?

The point is that Quark has managed to take a step forward and keep the original principle alive and honestly Quark network is pretty much secure(aside from using automatic checkpoints and 9 algos which make it difficult to mine outside of CPU) just because it doesn't offer that extra incentive to mine it. Again, most PC now have 4-8 cores, keeping your wallet open with only 1 cpu core so you can vote its essential for Quark network so please stop discouraging others to do so. I'm sure that with the new improved wallet that is being worked quarkers will have an incentive to leave their wallets open and participate in voting whenever they can.

[coinerer]

Who is dev of your future Quark clone Core ?

What will be characteristics of the new clone?

You are asking the wrong questions. We are discussing here, not deciding and as long as their are no decisions your questions can´t be answered.

This debate is open and if you have arguments, go ahead and let us hear them. Until now I didn´t hear any substantial contribution to the discussion.

I don't like any ideas about cloning, raising number of coins, PoS, merged mining with new clones, promotors and devs call for new clones,  ...

I like ideas about quark exchange, about improving security of quarkcoins, real shops, real use value of coins.

I don't know much about technical problems yet, but this idea and previous discussions looks good to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg7053189#msg7053189



Btw, if i were know what I know now (last few days) about Quarks, i will not hold most of my current QRKs now.

How would you exactly do it? There isn't really an incentive to mine quarks. That's why the merge mining proposal. I don't know which noob came up with the idea to make fast block halving to 1 quark after 6 months, because that's the cause quark didn't do well after 6 moths was over.

Isn't our first priority securing the network? If yes then isn't the only option merge mining? Forget about people keeping their wallet open voluntarily.

I am not sure, but is there real difference between opening wallet and opening miners. Opening wallet is energy efficient, mining is not.

Maybe solution should be using constant difficulty? Fixed chances (according to total number of opened wallets) to reward opening each wallet?

Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though?

Again if merge mining is the only solution then it should be done, quark with an insecure network won't go big. Quarks network security and popularity should rise before ShaqFu comes out.

Also merge mine (couple % premine) give us enough funds to work on new techs and add value to quark as well as securing the network. I mean quark hasn't much to lose anyway if you look at the price.

By my experience in mining, problem is in the competition who will mine more. Those with better equipments.

Every wallet is also miner (very weak for competition and current algorithms). If every wallet will have the same chance to mine coins (regardless of power of equipment, computer) people should have interest to open wallet and mine coins using only wallets. I think that will cause to make (algorithmically) difficulty constant (not important) and external miner (program) not needed (except miner embedded with wallet).

Also, today mining is performing in the pools mainly. And pool is only 1 wallet (I suppose). So, poole shoud be eliminated. If we spread mining to all opened wallets only, we get big network of wallets-miners where each wallets control every other wallet/transaction.

Ofc, I don't know to implement that now I think this is simplification of the current algorithms, and not sure about possible problems with such algorithm simplification.

[reRaise]

Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though?

You're keeping your wallet open so that you can VOTE and maintain a distributed power, that was Satoshi's initial idea which has later derailed into only tens of miner power houses to hold Bitcoin security, which at the moment they have the incentives to keep it but what'll happen when a few persons from those companies decide to switch the power upside down. Also what will happen when Bitcoin is no longer viable to mine ?

The point is that Quark has managed to take a step forward and keep the original principle alive and honestly Quark network is pretty much secure(aside from using automatic checkpoints and 9 algos which make it difficult to mine outside of CPU) just because it doesn't offer that extra incentive to mine it. Again, most PC now have 4-8 cores, keeping your wallet open with only 1 cpu core so you can vote its essential for Quark network so please stop discouraging others to do so. I'm sure that with the new improved wallet that is being worked quarkers will have an incentive to leave their wallets open and participate in voting whenever they can.

Because people won't mine for free or pay electricity costs and get nothing back in return, that's just how it is. When Bitcoin is mined out miners will get paid by the fees and Bitcoins price is a lot higher then quark. If Quark was above $1 then people would mine for money, nobody would mine Bitcoin if they couldn't earn money. With Bitcoin there is money to be made while mining and there are enough millionaire with ASICS and huge farms mining. But with quark there is no incentive at the moment. Would the block halving have taken years then quark would be along side Litecoin on top of coin market cap. Wy do you think people left, because they couldn't get money anymore from mining and mining is needed to secure the network. Quark can be attacked pretty easily if some with bad intention really would want to do it. So what are the solutions for securing the network, as far as i know is keeping wallets open which won't help, since we already tried and second merge mining. If everyone cares about securing the network shouldn't we all have to agree on merge mining? Unless there is another option.

[schnötzel]

Any news about the shaq fu game?

[reRaise]

Any news about the shaq fu game?

ShaqFu is coming in 2015, no updates yet, i think it's devs are working on the game. I really can't wait for new updates, very excited about it. I would love to tear shit up with quark power gauntlet.

[maok]

Telling people to keep their wallet open won't work, it's not a fundamental solution. That's why satoshi gave them the incentive to mine and in quark there is no incentive to mine. I don't know how merge mining goes can someone explain, so basically people mine the new coin? but what does it have to do with quarks network security though?

You're keeping your wallet open so that you can VOTE and maintain a distributed power, that was Satoshi's initial idea which has later derailed into only tens of miner power houses to hold Bitcoin security, which at the moment they have the incentives to keep it but what'll happen when a few persons from those companies decide to switch the power upside down. Also what will happen when Bitcoin is no longer viable to mine ?

The point is that Quark has managed to take a step forward and keep the original principle alive and honestly Quark network is pretty much secure(aside from using automatic checkpoints and 9 algos which make it difficult to mine outside of CPU) just because it doesn't offer that extra incentive to mine it. Again, most PC now have 4-8 cores, keeping your wallet open with only 1 cpu core so you can vote its essential for Quark network so please stop discouraging others to do so. I'm sure that with the new improved wallet that is being worked quarkers will have an incentive to leave their wallets open and participate in voting whenever they can.

Because people won't mine for free or pay electricity costs and get nothing back in return, that's just how it is. When Bitcoin is mined out miners will get paid by the fees and Bitcoins price is a lot higher then quark. If Quark was above $1 then people would mine for money, nobody would mine Bitcoin if they couldn't earn money. With Bitcoin there is money to be made while mining and there are enough millionaire with ASICS and huge farms mining. But with quark there is no incentive at the moment. Would the block halving have taken years then quark would be along side Litecoin on top of coin market cap. Wy do you think people left, because they couldn't get money anymore from mining and mining is needed to secure the network. Quark can be attacked pretty easily if some with bad intention really would want to do it. So what are the solutions for securing the network, as far as i know is keeping wallets open which won't help, since we already tried and second merge mining. If everyone cares about securing the network shouldn't we all have to agree on merge mining? Unless there is another option.

Quark was build to prevent being controlled by few specialized mining companies so DO keep Quark wallet open so you can vote, 1 CPU core will not consume alot of energy trust me. The incentive is that you'll protect the network and your funds, although Quark has mechanism to prevent that, the network power is still important.

Protecting your funds and making sure you vote will cost you ~$0.1 extra per month so when you're talking about "people won't mine for free" you're actually talking about specialized miners who only mine for profits not for principles. Its the same with corporations lobbyists which financially support whichever political side so they can obtain whatever laws which in turn will more cash to their business. We're not doing this so its good that mining Quark is not making some miners millionaires like its making those few powerhouse Bitcoin miners, Quark is about equality, if you want to vote you can do so because you're CPU vote counts as 1, unlike Bitcoin where the voting system is rigged in favor of the few rich miners. Hopefully with the new, improved Quark wallet that is being worked on at this moment quarkers will keep their wallets open and make their vote count whenever they have their PCs opened.

"If Quark was above $1" Well Im glad where the price is now because more people can buy them when its very low, the distribution will be even larger than it is now. Im hoping it will stay low for enough time so that many people have the chance to purchase a few at a fair price and be part of something really special like Quark.

"Quark can be attacked pretty easily if some with bad intention really would want to do it" Yes and some could also attack Bitcoin if they really wanted to, of course it will involve alot more money and influence but it doable. Quark has the checkpoints system that prevents the network to be really impacted by whatever attack is planned against, but again if enough energy is put into it anything is doable but we'll deal with that when it comes, lets not worry too much. By the time Quark is worth attacking we'll already have a good secured network with quarkers willing to leave their wallets open as foundation ground of the network security, so instead of spreading "mining is not profitable with Quark" please try to open people and spread some positive info like "keep your Quark wallet opened and use your 1 cpu core to vote".

[coinerer]

Additionally, our C++ coder/Quark community member: Someguy1234.. will be assisting Max with updates!

From Max Guevera.:

"Status on 0.9.2 code-base upgrade:

I've setup a github repository on:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/

based on the latest Bitcoin 0.9.2 branch.

The following changes have been committed:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/commits/master

* Makefiles updated
* Chain parameters
* Checkpoints
* Configuration files
* SHA2 POW hashing replaced with Quark hashing
* Some translations from "Bitcoin" to "Quark"
* Graphics
* Payment server

The following changes were applied to Quark:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commits/master

All these commits needs to be included in the 0.9.2 branch of Quark.

In particular we still need to add dynamic checkpoints, from this commit:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commit/79c3190f111cd97cfa653c382417499c1614948c

Other changes still to do:

* Places where UI text still says "Bitcoin"
* Chinese translations for "Quark"
* Other core differences between Quark and Bitcoin, particular those made by Sifcoin
* Lots of testing!

Someguy(NameEdited), feel free to create pull requests for any additional changes or e-mail me queries you may have.

Cheers"

I have just compiled new QuarkCoins Wallet version 0.9.2 (very early stage of development).   At this stage they made extremely good job for compiling at my Windows and MinGW. Compilation passed without any problems (thanks to my script for Windows compiling too ) Compilation passed never easier.

But, wallet 0.9.2 is not yet for use (very early stage of development). It crashed immediately after start. So I did not see wallet outook.

I think devs will made good job. I like their extremely good compilation configuration for now

If somebody wants to try this compilation, first must is to make backup of current wallet.

[coinerer]

For devs of new wallet version 0.9.2 (new very early stage of development wallet) only:



After compilation on Windows 8, Mingw & gcc 4.9.0, and starting quark-qt.exe, wallet failed to start and Error is:


MinGW Runtime Assertion

Assertion failed!

Program: ..somepath..\quark-qt.exe
File:  chainparams.cpp, Line 68

Expression:  hashGenesisBlock == hashMainGenesisBlock






After few pressing on Ignore button, wallet started

But - I have 1000x less QRKs than before. Only a few Probably same with transactions.

Syncing with network probably work.

I refuse to test other sensitive options


After returning to current version of wallet, 0.8.23, or my 0.8.24, it seems blockchain is corrupted

Do not use this new early stage wallet 0.9.2, just for experiments, except if you have to like I had to Do backup!

[StephenJH]

Would Max be willing to, or is it even possible to hard fork and add a percent PoS? This could be incentive enough for people to leave their clients open.

[quarkfx]

Would Max be willing to, or is it even possible to hard fork and add a percent PoS? This could be incentive enough for people to leave their clients open.

I think it is possible. We had a duscussion on that some time ago on Reddit. It is certainly possible to talk to him about this.

@ReRaise

 Beside the "leaving the wallet open" solution which you don't agree on. What is your opinion on "moving" to POS/POW (my proposal on page 326)?

[laris2]

Did you know there is quark casino @ http://quarkuniverse-casino.l8.io/?r=quark-casino

[fkinglag]

Did you know there is quark casino @ http://quarkuniverse-casino.l8.io/?r=quark-casino

Did you know there is a lotto bot?

#quarkuniverse

on freenode

[quarkcheck]

wow down another 5% - the race to the bottom it seems for qrk.

By the time we decide to do something qrk will be 100 sats again where it started from. Good luck bringing it back from that level.

Maybe, but from my experience you do worst when you act quick because you start to get nervous. So lets go through the arguments and our view will be clearer afterwards (i hope

So the Quark only IPO. As I said elsewhere, i can´t see how the companion coin wouldn´t massively undermine Quark, because people would always ask why the heck they should keep Quark if they can have a "better" coin (and still the same community). I only see one way where the IPO is a good solution, that is when a Part of the community wants to move away from the developer. I can´t see this as a "companion" solution. However, if the development perspective appears to be negative , then it may be a good solution to move Quark investors to a somewhat more promising solution.

Take this scenario:

1. We look for a capable team of developers who are looking out for a capable and dedicated community (usually not the case, but as I lined out, the community is one key factor to success and we can provide that)
2. The developer create a Quark based coin (working title: core) that adopts features that are seriously promising (and not only to hype the coin, I am especially thinking of features that allow voting with your coins!) with ~ the amount of coins as Quark + a yearly inflation of say 1% (currently we have no stable inflation, that is seriously confusing)
3. We create an Quark only IPO and sell 1 Core = 1 Quark.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community premine" (I talked about this earlier). Unlike "normal" premine this money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts). This is also the money which we can use to pay the developers on a regular basis (NOT at once).
(optionally 5. Another 40% is stored via smart contract and paid out to shareholders for the next 36 months. This could be a mechanism to reduce prisoners dilemma: People know that there are large shareholders and they might be scared (for good reason?) that those are just waiting for the right time to drop all of their holdings. By "leasing" it back to holders you "store" self-interest and by doing that support trust in the community. (I am not talking about shady concepts like e.g. ECC used [the longer you keep the more you get]. you will get back what you paid in, there is no additional inflation)

I really like this as an alternative in case that there is no development perspective AT ALL. So in my opinion we should seek a critical debate with the developer to level out what is possible and what not with him. If it turns out to be a waste of time then I think this could be our Plan D


Everything I wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683618.new#new
can be applied

Is this Plan D  sort of a replacement of Quark with new 'Core' coin with  Quark algo and  PoS+PoW system?  Is it like a way out offer to existing quark holder?  I really like this idea QuarkFX...If all the other options are out of the table.

If so, to extend, would you not open option to accept fiat for this new 'Core' Coin as well?  Cause people maybe annoyed has to buy one coin first to exchange another..

[Netnox]

@ quarkfx

So it seems that it will be hard for everyone to keep their wallets open as the fundamental solution to secure the network, remember that people can drop off for whatever reason since there isn't really an incentive for them, remember most of them want something back for it. Now how about giving them the incentive through implementing the game you been working on in the wallet where they can earn quark?