[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[quarkfx]

@ 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?

That would be a good idea and I discussed it with Julie some time ago but
a) the game still needs to be financed
b) the game is Android based
We discussed implementing a mobile miner and HashEngineer even said, that it could work without totally draining the battery, but the effect would only be relevant if - say - 1 Mio. people play it and I don´t expect this to happen short-mid term, even if we manage to market it good.

To be honest, solution D seems pretty appealing to me because it would allow the community to finally take over. Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

[1714690419]

1714690419

[1714690419]

1714690419

[1714690419]

1714690419

[1714690419]

1714690419

[1714690419]

1714690419

[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?

That would be a good idea and I discussed it with Julie some time ago but
a) the game still needs to be financed
b) the game is Android based
We discussed implementing a mobile miner and HashEngineer even said, that it could work without totally draining the battery, but the effect would only be relevant if - say - 1 Mio. people play it and I don´t expect this to happen short-mid term, even if we manage to market it good.

To be honest, solution D seems pretty appealing to me because it would allow the community to finally take over. Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

Yes i just read plan D, seems interesting. This means the coin is going to be PoS since it's not minable right, which means it would have to compete with NXT etc since they both IPO and PoS. Although IPO is not the most liked way of releasing coins, how can we compensate this with Core so it makes it compelling to people? Also what does this mean for quark, does it effect quark negatively or positively? People basically exchange their quark for core right, you guys get quark which serves as a development pot and they get core. This means that there are now 2 coins under core members hand which needs to be cared of. Although how does this solve the quark security?

On a side note it would be pretty cool if ShaqFu could be implemented in the wallet : p

[quarkfx]

@ 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?

That would be a good idea and I discussed it with Julie some time ago but
a) the game still needs to be financed
b) the game is Android based
We discussed implementing a mobile miner and HashEngineer even said, that it could work without totally draining the battery, but the effect would only be relevant if - say - 1 Mio. people play it and I don´t expect this to happen short-mid term, even if we manage to market it good.

To be honest, solution D seems pretty appealing to me because it would allow the community to finally take over. Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

Yes i just read plan D, seems interesting. This means the coin is going to be PoS since it's not minable right, which means it would have to compete with NXT etc since they both IPO and PoS. Although IPO is not the most liked way of releasing coins, how can we compensate this with Core so it makes it compelling to people? Also what does this mean for quark, does it effect quark negatively or positively? People basically exchange their quark for core right, you guys get quark which serves as a development pot and they get core. This means that there are now 2 coins under core members hand which needs to be cared of. Although how does this solve the quark security?

On a side note it would be pretty cool if ShaqFu could be implemented in the wallet : p

I think POS+POW would be better, but that´s not the point. As Yellowblackbird noted this wouldn´t be an IPO, it would be rather Proof of Burn. It would mean that we move from one coin to another. That´s why I said we should go for this as last choice but it is always good to know that there is a last choice that allows maintaining the community work we achieved, even if Quark keeps dropping in price.

[reRaise]

@ 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?

That would be a good idea and I discussed it with Julie some time ago but
a) the game still needs to be financed
b) the game is Android based
We discussed implementing a mobile miner and HashEngineer even said, that it could work without totally draining the battery, but the effect would only be relevant if - say - 1 Mio. people play it and I don´t expect this to happen short-mid term, even if we manage to market it good.

To be honest, solution D seems pretty appealing to me because it would allow the community to finally take over. Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

Yes i just read plan D, seems interesting. This means the coin is going to be PoS since it's not minable right, which means it would have to compete with NXT etc since they both IPO and PoS. Although IPO is not the most liked way of releasing coins, how can we compensate this with Core so it makes it compelling to people? Also what does this mean for quark, does it effect quark negatively or positively? People basically exchange their quark for core right, you guys get quark which serves as a development pot and they get core. This means that there are now 2 coins under core members hand which needs to be cared of. Although how does this solve the quark security?

On a side note it would be pretty cool if ShaqFu could be implemented in the wallet : p

I think POS+POW would be better, but that´s not the point. As Yellowblackbird noted this wouldn´t be an IPO, it would be rather Proof of Burn. It would mean that we move from one coin to another. That´s why I said we should go for this as last choice but it is always good to know that there is a last choice that allows maintaining the community work we achieved, even if Quark keeps dropping in price.

This should really be the last option. I would then go with the option of changing quark into pow/pos or merge mining.

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created, although i assume it would solve the network issue without the need for another coin. Certainly PoW is not working for quark, for it to work there should be more incentive to mine.

[quarkfx]

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created (...)

Following my proposal there would be a (relatively large) pot for core and community development.

[reRaise]

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created (...)

Following my proposal there would be a (relatively large) pot for core and community development.

Which proposal do you mean so i can check it out.

If there is indeed a large pot, then i like the pow/pos idea, we could time the announcement together with some nice quark updates, like the new wallet, i heard about a game being made: maybe you can publicize that along with the announcement etc.

[quarkfx]

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created (...)

Following my proposal there would be a (relatively large) pot for core and community development.

Which proposal do you mean so i can check it out.

If there is indeed a large pot, then i like the pow/pos idea, we could time the announcement together with some nice quark updates, like the new wallet, i heard about a game being made: maybe you can publicize that along with the announcement etc.

I mean the proposal I made on page 326:

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 proof-of-burn protocol where every 1 destroyed Quark = 1 Core.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community share" (I talked about this earlier). This money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts) and will be distributed in a timeframe that we expect is needed to install a solid infrastructure. 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)

[reRaise]

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created (...)

Following my proposal there would be a (relatively large) pot for core and community development.

Which proposal do you mean so i can check it out.

If there is indeed a large pot, then i like the pow/pos idea, we could time the announcement together with some nice quark updates, like the new wallet, i heard about a game being made: maybe you can publicize that along with the announcement etc.

I mean the proposal I made on page 326:

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 proof-of-burn protocol where every 1 destroyed Quark = 1 Core.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community share" (I talked about this earlier). This money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts) and will be distributed in a timeframe that we expect is needed to install a solid infrastructure. 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)

Very interesting, so by destroying you mean those who have quark exchange it for core?

[ycagel]

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die. Are you suggesting that this new coin will cause an equal conversion for Quark holders?

YC

@ quarkfx

 To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

[quarkfx]

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

Well, I bought Quarks for about 300 EUR I believe 90% of all Quark investors didn´t buy more (just my personal estimation). There are of course several holders who hold a lot more than that and where serious money is at stake, so yes, you are right, I was referring to what I believe is the majority and those of you who have more Quark than the avarage Quarker should be even more interested in a solution that gives more value to the currency. But then again, this is only my personal opinion. I don´t believe that Quark will die but I think we should act anyway to reach out to the current competitors in the top 10 market cap. I believe we can get there again, but I don´t believe we will get there for nothing.

Are you suggesting that this new coin will cause an equal conversion for Quark holders?

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

[ycagel]

There have been some serious conversations here and while I appreciate that, let's move away from analysis paralysis. Have we made a decision amongst the main folks taking charge as to what the concrete solutions are?

It would be good to set timeframes and milestones to execute. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

Thanks,
YC

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

Well, I bought Quarks for about 300 EUR I believe 90% of all Quark investors didn´t buy more (just my personal estimation). There are of course several holders who hold a lot more than that and where serious money is at stake, so yes, you are right, I was referring to what I believe is the majority and those of you who have more Quark than the avarage Quarker should be even more interested in a solution that gives more value to the currency. But then again, this is only my personal opinion. I don´t believe that Quark will die but I think we should act anyway to reach out to the current competitors in the top 10 market cap. I believe we can get there again, but I don´t believe we will get there for nothing.

Are you suggesting that this new coin will cause an equal conversion for Quark holders?

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

[reRaise]

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

Well, I bought Quarks for about 300 EUR I believe 90% of all Quark investors didn´t buy more (just my personal estimation). There are of course several holders who hold a lot more than that and where serious money is at stake, so yes, you are right, I was referring to what I believe is the majority and those of you who have more Quark than the avarage Quarker should be even more interested in a solution that gives more value to the currency. But then again, this is only my personal opinion. I don´t believe that Quark will die but I think we should act anyway to reach out to the current competitors in the top 10 market cap. I believe we can get there again, but I don´t believe we will get there for nothing.

Are you suggesting that this new coin will cause an equal conversion for Quark holders?

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

I'm with you, what would be the other more applicable ideas? Going pow/pos and merge mining right? If these are the two better options we should chose one. Unless there is another valuable idea.

I also agree with the above post of ycagel

[quarkfx]

There have been some serious conversations here and while I appreciate that, let's move away from analysis paralysis. Have we made a decision amongst the main folks taking charge as to what the concrete solutions are?

It would be good to set timeframes and milestones to execute. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

Thanks,
YC

Please, go ahead. Really, I know that if we don´t take action that it is just talk, but unfortunately talk and concept precedes action (at least for me). In this thread and in another I posted some rather detailed sketches of what we could do. I haven´t seen others developing comparable proposals and yes, I would like to hear more but I am not willing to "just do it".

I can tell you what I think we should do first:
1. having different elaborated options
2. talking to Max Guevara and ask him what he thinks about it

I personally won´t stay with Quark if the prospect of Quark is "business as usual" but I think before talking the situation worse than it probably is, talking to the dev is obligatory to me. Anyway, by that time, we should have set up several scenarios on our backhand. I hosted a doc at

http://bit.ly/quarkscenarios

I will fill in my proposal later. Please provide yours.

[ycagel]

Quarkfx,
 I don't think anyone is suggesting just pull the trigger without any real substantial thought of the pros and cons. I am not a miner, so I can't speak intelligently on that. What I am suggesting is something needs to change. Speaking to Max is fine, but we need to find a way to get him more involved than he is. Either that or lets band together and get other developers involved and create an incentive, which I believe has been discussed.

Will Max participate in this thread? Can someone get him here? Let's reduce the attempts of communication and speak directly with the community.

Anyways, I do appreciate the hard work of the folks that have invested time and money. No doubt about that.

YC

There have been some serious conversations here and while I appreciate that, let's move away from analysis paralysis. Have we made a decision amongst the main folks taking charge as to what the concrete solutions are?

It would be good to set timeframes and milestones to execute. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

Thanks,
YC

Please, go ahead. Really, I know that if we don´t take action that it is just talk, but unfortunately talk and concept precedes action (at least for me). In this thread and in another I posted some rather detailed sketches of what we could do. I haven´t seen others developing comparable proposals and yes, I would like to hear more but I am not willing to "just do it".

I can tell you what I think we should do first:
1. having different elaborated options
2. talking to Max Guevara and ask him what he thinks about it

I personally won´t stay with Quark if the prospect of Quark is "business as usual" but I think before talking the situation worse than it probably is, talking to the dev is obligatory to me. Anyway, by that time, we should have set up several scenarios on our backhand. I hosted a doc at

http://bit.ly/quarkscenarios

I will fill in my proposal later. Please provide yours.

[reRaise]

There have been some serious conversations here and while I appreciate that, let's move away from analysis paralysis. Have we made a decision amongst the main folks taking charge as to what the concrete solutions are?

It would be good to set timeframes and milestones to execute. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

Thanks,
YC

Please, go ahead. Really, I know that if we don´t take action that it is just talk, but unfortunately talk and concept precedes action (at least for me). In this thread and in another I posted some rather detailed sketches of what we could do. I haven´t seen others developing comparable proposals and yes, I would like to hear more but I am not willing to "just do it".

I can tell you what I think we should do first:
1. having different elaborated options
2. talking to Max Guevara and ask him what he thinks about it

I personally won´t stay with Quark if the prospect of Quark is "business as usual" but I think before talking the situation worse than it probably is, talking to the dev is obligatory to me. Anyway, by that time, we should have set up several scenarios on our backhand. I hosted a doc at

http://bit.ly/quarkscenarios

I will fill in my proposal later. Please provide yours.

Agreed with the bold part and just saw your link, very concrete information and ideas you have there, especially these possible features:

Decentralized Marketplace / Auction
Distributed Storage
Multi-signatures
Two-phase Payments
Voting System
Reputation System
Decentralized Mixing Service
Smart Contracts

I'm starting to like this approach. Although what i'm wondering is 4 things regarding core.

- What algorithm will core go for?

- I'm not sure if holders would want to store 40% of their assets away and get them monthly back in a period of 36 months. What if someone would want to have all of it back because of personal circumstances?

- What will happen to ShaqFu and quark and the game you are working on?

- The price is also important, what are the estimations of cores price when everyone converts and things start to run? Obviously the aim should be higher than the current quark prices.

[Y3llowb1ackbird]

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

I think if we want to have any hope of maintaining Quark's value during the switch we need to use proof-of-burn (granted, Quark's value is super-low right now but we are still around #20 in marketcap among the hundreds and hundreds of coins out there). I worry that if we make a companion coin without killing quark (or at least some quarkcoins) then all we will do is divide the quark community in half. Some will stick with quark and others will move to the companion coin...especially if it experiences a pump after its launch.

To ensure that the new coin has value we need to destroy something that currently does have value--i.e. quarkcoins.


Just my 2 quarks.

[Y3llowb1ackbird]

- What will happen to ShaqFu and quark and the game you are working on?

- The price is also important, what are the estimations of cores price when everyone converts and things start to run? Obviously the aim should be higher than the current quark prices.

My thoughts on a couple of your questions

1. This is a very good question...however, Shaq Fu in itself is not reason enough to leave Quark as is.

2. I think if we use proof-of-burn to create Core then theoretically we should be able to enter at roughly the market cap of however many coins were destroyed in Core's creation.

[ycagel]

Yellow,
 So what happens to existing Quark holders with their coins in a Proof of Burn process? Do they lose that investment?

YC

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

I think if we want to have any hope of maintaining Quark's value during the switch we need to use proof-of-burn (granted, Quark's value is super-low right now but we are still around #20 in marketcap among the hundreds and hundreds of coins out there). I worry that if we make a companion coin without killing quark (or at least some quarkcoins) then all we will do is divide the quark community in half. Some will stick with quark and others will move to the companion coin...especially if it experiences a pump after its launch.

To ensure that the new coin has value we need to destroy something that currently does have value--i.e. quarkcoins.


Just my 2 quarks.

[Y3llowb1ackbird]

Yellow,
 So what happens to existing Quark holders with their coins in a Proof of Burn process? Do they lose that investment?

YC

It depends upon how many Quarkholders decide to move to the new coin.

Basically, proof-of-burn is the process of creating coins by destroying old ones. You make a quark wallet that only has a public address (no private key) and people can trade their quarkcoins for the new coins by sending quarks to that address. The foundation would monitor the address via the block explorer during the distribution period and when it was over they would send the new coins to people who took advantage of the process.

Since there is no private key, no one can ever spend those coins again. Essentially, they are destroyed.

So basically, If I send 50k QRK to the wallet address I will lose those quarks forever but will be rewarded with the equivalent of 50k QRK in the new currency. This is how Counterparty created their currency (they burned Bitcoin).

There are several scenarios about how this could affect people who decide not to move to Core, however.

1. The majority of Quark-holders move.

In this scenario, most of the Quark community transitions to Core. This will effectively kill Quark...the community will be so small that investors will lose confidence and sell out....unless somehow the remaining community stands firm and attracts new members. If that happened, then the price of QRK would probably go up quite a bit. So many Quarkcoins had been destroyed that those that remained would be worth a lot more.

2. A small portion of Quark-holders move

Say Quarkfx decides to launch core but only 5% of the community wants to go with him. This will probably leave Quark basically intact (as long as they still have a dev., foundation, etc.)...so Core should not affect Quark to much...the only effect would probably be a tiny bump in value to account for the coins that had been destroyed.

[reRaise]

Yellow,
 So what happens to existing Quark holders with their coins in a Proof of Burn process? Do they lose that investment?

YC

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

I think if we want to have any hope of maintaining Quark's value during the switch we need to use proof-of-burn (granted, Quark's value is super-low right now but we are still around #20 in marketcap among the hundreds and hundreds of coins out there). I worry that if we make a companion coin without killing quark (or at least some quarkcoins) then all we will do is divide the quark community in half. Some will stick with quark and others will move to the companion coin...especially if it experiences a pump after its launch.

To ensure that the new coin has value we need to destroy something that currently does have value--i.e. quarkcoins.


Just my 2 quarks.

This is a good point and i agree with this. It will divide the community and will make quark fade away, i would rather go with Core. I wouldn't know why ShaqFu devs wouldn't agree if we tell them that quark moved to core. ShaFu is one of the biggest Crypto achievements and we need to keep it.