[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[mcphervi]

So as it was brought up in email i'd like to get feedback from the community about how they feel about this Crypto - the parameters look good and it seems exceptional as it seems like a fair start and has benign non hostile interest on the forum -

"AS julie suggested in email we should re-brand it if the Dev is palatable to that he seems keen from the limited contact i've had with him."

for a merge mine to work I'd like to involve as much as the general public with the idea of profiting from mining a crypto, i think this can be achieved now.

For the record, I never said this...Very annoying!! So now I attach the email for what I actually said:

"Hi everyone,

I have been following this thread for a few days and I will just reply here on some things I see, and also including Max and others in the reply (many people were deleted from this thread?)-  Max is after all an essential part of any discussion on a merge mine project. Once again I am hoping to get clarity directly from him on where everything stands, so we can get some direction moving forward.

Regarding the merge mine, Peter has pretty clearly laid out what his main objections would be, and likely also what most of the core community's objections would be as well- *secrecy* in moving a project forward without *any* input or knowledge of the rest of the core group.

Just as a reminder and for clarification for everyone: A few weeks ago, I sent out an email to the entire group regarding the idea of the merge mine project, so that we could begin discussing it in earnest (fyi, this was to get more transparency after the B9 "mess" was exposed) ,  and to begin working out a project that we could support and present with confidence to the community- There were some very good ideas by Victor and others, and a board was tentatively started in order to move things along, planning-wise. People were largely in support of a merge mine project if the details could be worked out, and there was a bounty raised for this as well.

@Kolin, shortly afterward (er-immediately), you started a new thread, and made a few statements which were dismissive of others ideas, and also indicating that the project was under some control of yours,  and would go a certain predetermined way. Vague answers to direct questions on this were not helpful, and certainly we could not move forward in trying to plan anything until knowing what was possible and what wasn't (!).. Things pretty much ground to a halt at that point, as all constructive discussions stopped. I have to say in my own experience I have had very little motivation to do anything for Quark recently, because we have no idea of who is actually leading the ship. Why all the vagueness and secrecy?

So there is no bureaucracy, but there is a VERY clear stumbling block here--which is a complete lack of transparency as to what projects are taking place, and who is in charge of them. Peter has requested a meeting to clear things up, I have sent an email to Max as well.

Kolin, looking at some of these Quark clones you speak of.. MimicCoin- an exact replica of the B9, created right after B9. Such a coincidence that the stars have aligned like this?..and the dev has contacted you, right after your announcement.. and we are to believe this. A plain Quark clone, created with no features, but "just so happens" to fit what you are asking for  -No premine.  Sock-puppets (secret members of the Quark community?) present to support, mine, and accumulate this coin of no value or appeal, ramping up the difficulty already- how lovely and nice. First step of the multi-step plan in progress- "mining monopoly".

I will spare everyone the rest of the steps(rebrand, Bill Still), but why are we not informed of this again? Even when Peter asks directly we get some vague answer, or outright omission of the truth, and sarcasm about the beauty of crypto(I.e. "you can buy or sell, stay or leave").
A plan like this (with some minor modification) would have had so much more support if it were not so secretive and scammy in appearance. Right after the B9 no less- Trust IS at the core of why this would not be supported-

Yes, as Peter indicated- the only reason why I ever objected to the B9 was because of the hidden nature of it (not just keeping Core members out of it, but hiding it), and having no clearly identifiable and trustworthy plan as to who would mine for whom, how it would be introduced to the community,or raise money for the Foundation(projects) etc,etc.. Also, there was no cohesiveness, even among the people planning it.

And  Kolin for some reason you object to a transparent pre-mine, : "community" or  "Foundation premine" or something workable and transparent that would fairly pay everyone involved? You will not even consider anyone else's proposal, but appear to be going ahead with your own- Why?  (And also, how is it possible that you have the veto power?)

I am for a merge mine project as discussed in the IRC meeting (and so was nearly everyone on this thread until things fell apart)- A project that done fairly would raise enough money for the devs, the Foundation (infrastructure projects), etc...

Could not the trusted Foundation (after some structuring) be the one that presents the plan to the community:  that we are going ahead with a merge mine plan to support the hash-rate , add features, and manage a pre-mine (for devs and infrastructure)?
I am pretty confident we could sell the community on something we actually support.. Also Kolin, you have so many trollers following you now as a result of your NXT posts etc, you need the support of the core group, not to have Quark trashed as a result of a scammy appearing project...."
The email goes on, but mainly posting it here to clarify that I don't agree with rebranding a coin that is scammy in appearance-

I am however in favor of what I highlighted in bold..

CH, the plan with MimicCoin is to launch a plain Quark Clone with zero features, not to publicize it, but mine the hell out of it, then introduce it to the community as the "newly found merge-mine solution", rebranding it and publicizing-

No I am not in favor of doing this technique at all- especially with lies surrounding it... just for the record!

You can't "mine the hell out of" something that has a block halving time of 4 years and a primary distribution time of 20 years.

[1714706068]

1714706068

[1714706068]

1714706068

[1714706068]

1714706068

[Thule]

max isnt the dev.Max just modified the crypto a bit.Max created a copy of a russian crypto created from a russian programer.

So calling him dev is a bit out of space and another question would be if he is even able to do these changes himself


Kolin,as you posted the last time QRK is doing great the coin crashed from $0.45 to $0.1



Also you guys still didnt released what destroyed quark and its community.It was nothing else as Kolin and the big wallets.Half of the community has been banned by Kolin for telling their concern about these wallets and not beliving in Kolins nonsense excuses.
These people went to create another coin without the mistakes of quark.

[maok]

wow nice to come back and read so much FUD here.. good signs! ... I have some catching up to do, lets see...

Quark is still in top 20! Looks good, we're still up there with all the FUD on this thread! Quark! so good, so fast, so much stability!!

Ha! Bytecoin has dropped 5-6 places in the market, leaving its clone Monero to hold its spot. This proves its all about community/marketing/promotion when it comes to a coin, not about coding! Take note quarkers!

Lol! a new scam has been added in the top 10 BitSharesX. Along with Nxt and Ripple, this is another artificially backed coin which will maintain its place in top 10 for a long time.

Bitcoin, our beloved & flawed crypto, has dropped a bit in price, no problem we'll see it reach $1K before the end of year! To the Moon!

Some serious pumping done on ReddCoin, when will the fucking speculators learn that people lose faith in crypto every time they manipulate the market. Thats the problem though, they don't care about going forward, they care only about making FIAT profit. FUCK!

Meanwhile, I'm seeing the same discussions here about companion coin, changing quark protocol and centralizing Quark by selecting a `captain`. Quarkers, if you want to do something pro-active I suggest you create a service that uses Quark(of any kind), promote Quark features to any existing crypto service(send emails request to add quark, etc), support an existing quark service/game/whatever just get involved, participate in the market activity because we need to have strong liquidity available if we want to be added as a valid payment method, take part in the community discussions because honestly no one is in charge we all decide the changes by accepting to mine/use Quark, if you want to create a coin which merge mines for quark then good for you promote it and let the free market decide about your new coin.

I'll catch up with the core quarkers in the next few days to see how's the new forum going, anyone who wants to get involved see the above points and get active, thats the way we're going to move forward in these hard times for almost all crypto coins, not only Quark.

[Thule]

Quark is still in top 20!

Based on volume which is the important indicator of a coin its 56
at the same lvl like  Nas , Unobtanium , Myriadcoin

[maok]

Quark is still in top 20!

Based on volume which is the important indicator of a coin its 56
at the same lvl like  Nas , Unobtanium , Myriadcoin

Well you kinda hit the point there, we don't have strong traders involved in creating liquidity. As an example for Bitcoin the 7-11 million daily volume almost 95% is from trading and less than 5% is from real buyers/sellers, same goes with all coins. Thats why I made a point earlier for quakers to get involved in the market in order to create liquidity so that we  attract traders and new services who wish to accept quark as payment method!

Anyways in the financial world, any bond, shares, business is judged by market cap not volume so the top 20! is a valid VALUE indicator.

[Thule]

Anyways in the financial world, any bond, shares, business is judged by market cap not volume so the top 20! is a valid VALUE indicator.

not if the coins where giver out for free and are hold in a few hands or do you really wanna tell me that as example Bytecoin isd worth $3.7 millions with a $400 trade volume ?

[AliceWonder]

QuarkFX,
 Proof of burn is essentially the conversion of Quark to the "new" coin correct?

YC

Yes and I don't like it. It essentially means anyone who doesn't like/want the new coin is left holding a coin that is worthless.

It would be better to come up with a new coin and let the market determine its worth through exchanges.

In my opinion.

However I think sticking with quark is better, what's wrong with it that can't be fixed except by creation of a new coin and proof of burn?

[maok]

Anyways in the financial world, any bond, shares, business is judged by market cap not volume so the top 20! is a valid VALUE indicator.

not if the coins where giver out for free and are hold in a few hands or do you really wanna tell me that as example Bytecoin isd worth $3.7 millions with a $400 trade volume ?

Yes thats exactly it, just like Bitcoin isn't worth 8 billions, because if 10% of the big purses(much larger in percentage than quark holders) drop them on the exchanges the price would collapse back to $300 or $100, making a HUGE VOLUME on that day but the VALUE of a BTC much LOWER. Thats why you can only judge a coin by its market cap, not volume. Volume is very important but not when judging the VALUE!

[AliceWonder]

Anyways in the financial world, any bond, shares, business is judged by market cap not volume so the top 20! is a valid VALUE indicator.

not if the coins where giver out for free and are hold in a few hands or do you really wanna tell me that as example Bytecoin isd worth $3.7 millions with a $400 trade volume ?

Yes thats exactly it, just like Bitcoin isn't worth 8 billions, because if 10% of the big purses(much larger in percentage than quark holders) drop them on the exchanges the price would collapse back to $300 or $100, making a HUGE VOLUME on that day but the VALUE of a BTC much LOWER. Thats why you can only judge a coin by its market cap, not volume. Volume is very important but not when judging the VALUE!

Given how the value of bitcoin dropped just from Dell selling, I think if 10% of the big bitcoin purses dumped, bitcoin would crash to below $100.

It's real value currently is the scarcity caused by hoarding. In my opinion.

As markets open to bitcoin and spending starts to take place, it's value will correct. New adoption in bitcoin is dying.

[reRaise]

Quark is still in top 20!

Based on volume which is the important indicator of a coin its 56
at the same lvl like  Nas , Unobtanium , Myriadcoin

Volume can skyrocket very fast, it's not such an issue, see reddcoin, it was dead and 51% attacked couple time with low volume, but now it's has high volume. It's the matter of marketing and developments and quark really has the team with talented guys, i do agree that kolins unprofessional behaviour has played a rol in quark progress, but the rest of the guys are really an amazing team

[quarkfx]

QuarkFX,
 Proof of burn is essentially the conversion of Quark to the "new" coin correct?

YC

Yes and I don't like it. It essentially means anyone who doesn't like/want the new coin is left holding a coin that is worthless.

It would be better to come up with a new coin and let the market determine its worth through exchanges.

In my opinion.

However I think sticking with quark is better, what's wrong with it that can't be fixed except by creation of a new coin and proof of burn?

Wtf? You haven't understand a word of the approach, otherwise your post doesn't make any sense at all.

It would be better to come up with a new coin and let the market determine its worth through exchanges.

So you think a new coin is better? Guess what,  proof of burn is exactly that: a new coin. It is also not unfair because everyone can decide on his and her own whether he or she likes to burn or stick with Quark. Of course if the majority of people and their infrastructure are withdrawing from Quark this could cause Quark to become less valuable or even worthless but this would be anything else but letting the market determine the price.

What is the difference to a new coin? Only Quark holders would receive shares.  This is a way to SAVE the potential, time and ressources that many of us spent into Quark. The new coin would start at 0 with all the relevant tasks to be done (exchange rate listing etc.) but it may be a good option for those who don't agree with the current events.

So all in all, proof of burn is not really a concurrent approach to merge mining. It is rather a new coin to allow Quarkers to leave the community without losing their sahre. You don't need to like it. If it becomes reality you can still stick with Quark as is.

[cryptohunter]

QuarkFX,
 Proof of burn is essentially the conversion of Quark to the "new" coin correct?

YC

Yes and I don't like it. It essentially means anyone who doesn't like/want the new coin is left holding a coin that is worthless.

It would be better to come up with a new coin and let the market determine its worth through exchanges.

In my opinion.

However I think sticking with quark is better, what's wrong with it that can't be fixed except by creation of a new coin and proof of burn?

Wtf? You haven't understand a word of the approach, otherwise your post doesn't make any sense at all.

It would be better to come up with a new coin and let the market determine its worth through exchanges.

So you think a new coin is better? Guess what,  proof of burn is exactly that: a new coin. It is also not unfair because everyone can decide on his and her own whether he or she likes to burn or stick with Quark. Of course if the majority of people and their infrastructure are withdrawing from Quark this could cause Quark to become less valuable or even worthless but this would be anything else but letting the market determine the price.

What is the difference to a new coin? Only Quark holders would receive shares.  This is a way to SAVE the potential, time and ressources that many of us spent into Quark. The new coin would start at 0 with all the relevant tasks to be done (exchange rate listing etc.) but it may be a good option for those who don't agree with the current events.

So all in all, proof of burn is not really a concurrent approach to merge mining. It is rather a new coin to allow Quarkers to leave the community without losing their sahre. You don't need to like it. If it becomes reality you can still stick with Quark as is.

I like the idea if the coin will have some good developers behind it and the main qrk team are on board. I hope it will all be transparent and community input will be key to decisions.

I still am not sure how proof of burn is any better than qrk only ipo. I hope you'll build in a development pot of at least 10% that is transparent anyway so we have some funds to spend.

The actual burning is kind of trust related isn't it?   better to keep the qrk in a pot and release for projects.

Either way thankfully someone is doing something.  I hope you and VIC and Coinmama can get together and work on this. I think VIC is key to qrk even being 1c tbh.

Instead of all the hassle of merge mining, a small % of the companion coin could be held back for mining on foundation pools. Set up some qrk mining foundation pools taking 2% cut and top hashers get some companion coins as reward. Then again i guess proof of burn (if the qrk is really burned for good) is going to perhaps lead to the total replacement of qrk with another currency so maintaining qrk's chain security is not that important.

The key is getting some very good developers onboard, for that we would need to reserve at lot of the coin for them and release it to them over a period of time for continued development.

Either way i am pleased to see something being done.

[quarkfx]

I still am not sure how proof of burn is any better than qrk only ipo. I hope you'll build in a development pot of at least 10% that is transparent anyway so we have some funds to spend.

First off, I am not launching anything. What I will do however is looking for a feasible way for Quarkers to translate their share to another project where the community can start from scratch and stick together. Why is Proof of burn better than an IPO? Because for an IPO you would need the coins to be already premined + you would need trust for those who distribute the shares.  With proof of burn trust isn't needed because pwople would simply do it on their own.
As I said before, the protocol could be created ao e.g. people burn 1 QRK and receive for that 0.5 of the new currency,  0.2 is reserved for a community fund and 0.3 is deposited and subsequently paid back over a certain period of time (e.g. 3 years). This way everyone would donate equally 20% to the community and 30% are paid back slowly so the interest in pumping&dumping is kept low mid term.

The actual burning is kind of trust related isn't it?   better to keep the qrk in a pot and release for projects.

No, burning is trustless as explained above. Look up Counterparty. They use Bitcoin proof of burn. And no, there are no QRK for a community fund. Quarks are burned and disappear from circulation. Instead the community receices 20% of the whole burnt sum as community fund. This solution needs a solid foundation in forehand otherwise it is doomed to die.

As I said, I am not planning to launch a coin, but I can contribute to the discussion and if there are enough interested Quarkers we can prepare thia to happen. Good deva are the key as you said and probably funding to get them started. If you know devs who are looking for a motivated community to start to work with, you should post contacts.

[maok]

Either way i am pleased to see something being done.

Hi,
in regards to proof of burn, I hope you and Peter are well aware that it won't have nothing in common with Quark(all the principles that attracted quarkers: cPOW, speed, fees,etc. ). Also I hope you are both aware that in order to implement it we would require a hardfork of Quark so that the old qrks could be BURNED and your new coin to receive the burned old coins. If that happens and you successfully convince everyone of us to move on that coin, as I've explained it would have nothing in common with Quark(i for one won't upgrade my quark software/protocol for such a change).

I think most of the times people like to give complex technical solutions(like Kolin tried with proof of stake) without fully understanding what is required to achieve it and/or understanding the implications. Instead of concentrating your attention on making protocol changes maybe we should rely on quark promotion, services, acceptance, etc.

Merge mining idea initially posted ~40 pages ago, suggested we should use Quark as a slave to another coin, which again would've required an hardfork for our protocol so that when mining Quark we also mine X coin. I am totally against this, however if someone wants to create X coin or to modify existing coin(quarkbar ,etc) in order to make Quark the main coin, then everyone is free to do so: For example if you want to help Quark hashrate and have a great idea of a coin but you decide that you will offer the miners not only your coin units but also QRK reward then its no problem, those miners will have to solve both Quark and their coin puzzles, which in turn will help our hashrate. I don't suggest anyone should concentrate their attention on this(unless you're a dev with lots of spare time) but instead lets just focus on Quark promotion, share ideas about quark services, support other services that accept quark, basically everything that will help Quark get a wider acceptance from people and merchants. As I've said in my last post Bytecoin is slowly dying, yet its clone Monero is still maintaining its position, why ? because its not about the fucking code(that is what brought us together so there's no reason to change it but only to improve it(add mutlisig, solution for a big blockchain, etc!!!), its about the community..

[AliceWonder]

So you think a new coin is better? Guess what,  proof of burn is exactly that: a new coin

A new coin with an initial exchange of coins that is not based on free market.

That's just the way I say it.

[maok]

Look up Counterparty. They use Bitcoin proof of burn.

If you take Counterparty's version of proof of burn then it wouldn't require an Quark hardfork, however the new coin would have to rely on Quark blockchain for safely storing the proof of ownership. Then you would have to come up with a whole new marketing plan in order to give value to that newly created coin, therefore instead of doing that I suggest we focus on Quark promotion.

Sure, if you have a great idea of a coin that could be used with Quark, like merge mining or XCP's version of PoB you can create it as it would only help Quark in strengthening its market position(like NMC and XCP for Bitcoin), however if your new coin doesn't bring anything new to the scene of altcoins then you'd better of promoting Quark which already has some desirable features and was the first to implement them, has a fair distribution and a undervalued price, its perfectly build for merchants and fast applications like games.

[quarkfx]

@maok

I think most of the times people like to give complex technical solutions(like Kolin tried with proof of stake) without fully understanding what is required to achieve it and/or understanding the implications.

Funny cause your post shows clearly that you don't know what you are talking about.

Either way i am pleased to see something being done.

Hi,
in regards to proof of burn, I hope you and Peter are well aware that it won't have nothing in common with Quark(all the principles that attracted quarkers: cPOW, speed, fees,etc. ). Also I hope you are both aware that in order to implement it we would require a hardfork of Quark so that the old qrks could be BURNED and your new coin to receive the burned old coins. If that happens and you successfully convince everyone of us to move on that coin, as I've explained it would have nothing in common with Quark(i for one won't upgrade my quark software/protocol for such a change).

Aha...it needs hardfork... intetesting. No it doesn't.  Read about it. Coins are burned by sending them to a "dead" address. A hard fork is not needed or did counterparty need a Bitcoin hardfork? The coins ate still in the blockchain bur they are lost. The protocol only confirms your "work". You obviously completely misunderstood proof of burn or simply don't know about it.

Merge mining idea initially posted ~40 pages ago, suggested we should use Quark as a slave to another coin, which again would've required an hardfork for our protocol so that when mining Quark we also mine X coin.

Who wrote about Quark shozld be the slave of another coin? That proposal wouldn't make any sense to me.

I don't suggest anyone should concentrate their attention on this(unless you're a dev with lots of spare time) but instead lets just focus on Quark promotion, share ideas about quark services, support other services that accept quark, basically everything that will help Quark get a wider acceptance from people and merchants. As I've said in my last post Bytecoin is slowly dying, yet its clone Monero is still maintaining its position, why ? because its not about the fucking code(that is what brought us together so there's no reason to change it but only to improve it(add mutlisig, solution for a big blockchain, etc!!!), its about the community..

Monero has a dedicated and responsive dev with talent and good ideas. It is all about the community but a) the developers are imüortant figures and b) the community doed not exist for nothing - a community needs to be built. With secrecy and closed discourse this is not going to work. I explained on Reddit why I have problems with mimiccoin, I wont repeat it here. You don't have to agree with me but you will certainly understand that I won't spend more time into Quark if I see that the team structures we tried to create to move things forward are made effectively irrelevant. Also I can't see a clear correspondence between dev and community but rather between devs and single individuals. This has no future in my opinion.

@Alice

 A new coin with an initial exchange of coins that is not based on free market.

That's just the way I say it.

That is nonsense. When the distribution is burnt from another coin the market conditions don't change.  Please, do be a favor and read:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn

Technically a proof of burn coin can be considered as being created on the top of the other coin, so by saying there is no free market you say Quark has no free market.

[quarkfx]

If you take Counterparty's version of proof of burn then it wouldn't require an Quark hardfork

Which prominent Proof of Burn concept uses hard forks? None.

however if your new coin doesn't bring anything new to the scene of altcoins then you'd better of promoting Quark which already has some desirable features and was the first to implement them, has a fair distribution and a undervalued price, its perfectly build for merchants and fast applications like games.

I already outlined the possible innovations, won't repeat it the 10th time.

[kitaco]

^

lol it's not beaten at all you idiot, just because they have more hashing doesn't mean it's better. So x11 has been beaten by x13 and x13 by x15? lol gtfo, also quark has random hashing as well which x11 doesn't, all these x13 x15 x17 xblabla are pure hype and overrated

http://www.getpimp.org/community/blog/144-what-are-all-these-x11,-x13,-x15-algorithms-made-of.html

Read that. Every single one of those destroys Quark.

[kitaco]

^

lol it's not beaten at all you idiot, just because they have more hashing doesn't mean it's better. So x11 has been beaten by x13 and x13 by x15? lol gtfo, also quark has random hashing as well which x11 doesn't, all these x13 x15 x17 xblabla are pure hype and overrated

yeah mate its great - as predicted our Trolls are back this is great news these guys are quite nervous , no i both approached and was approached the other currency after i posted for clone to contact me - but we have seen that the block times are vastly different so we are not totally sure about it?

these Tards "Kitaco" who is Canon ha ha we love them, they are really sadly low IQ keyboard monkeys, but they have a job and its great to see.

: D

Quark is moving beautifully  of course keyboard monkeys get caught up in their own narrative and believe that this forum matters. which is kind of cute.

Why would I be nervous? I was in the hospital for 5 weeks. None of you have made a cent on Quark and is just keeps doing worse and worse with a community that's LEAVING, while I'm pulling in cash money on other altcoins that aren't first gen garbage, and aren't run by COUGH people who can't type out a sentence more proficiently than a 8 year old.

Talking about my IQ. Oh the irony. My sides are in stitches from laughter.

Kolin, I got rid of you from this community once, and I hope someone gets rid of your insanity again - so people like coinmama, cashmen, and k1ngs can move on from the severe damage you have done to Quark.

You hear that Quark Community? Get RID of your PARASITE.