[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[maok]

Hi guys,

i am a top 29 quark holder with almost 1m quarks. I invested around $10k in Litecoin when they were around $2. I had around 6000 Litecoin which i sold all at between $24 and $26 each making $150k and exchanged them to BTC.

Before Quark i have been active in BTC-e and that where i found out about Quark. Everyone was talking about it. I researched a little and was convinced to go big on it. I loved the brand, the logo, and the fact that pretty well known people in the industry were talking about it.

I don't know if you guys remember that picture at the forums someone posted which stated that there was a 100 BTC buy order for quark, well that was me. I bought 500k quark at 0.00019 which made the price shoot up to 0.00032. So greed got me and i started to hold but then Bitcoin crashed and quark went with it. After that it went worse and 1 thing that bothered me was kolins behaviour, but somehow i kept my fate and bought another 500k BTC at lower prices.

So as you see i have lost around $140k (if i would sell) on quark, would i have been in Bitcoin i would have lost $50k. Meanwhile i have been giving around 40k quark to different projects like thunderclap where i gave away around 25k quark and apart from that i have been customising Quark subreddit to make it look nice. Notice that i'm just a trader and have no skills in coding and such so it's the best i can do. You might wonder why i don't give away much more, well the answer is simple i have already lost a lot and i'm certainly not rich in my private life. Although i still have fate in it and refuse to sell at these prices.

Hi Netnox, I want to say I respect the faith you've given Quark. I only found out about Quark early last month, I had huge issues with bitcoin last year with some mining equipment almost getting ripped of $40K. Since then I haven't followed any activity in crypto world till late December when I caught up with all the news and I remembered I had some forgotten bitcoins in mtgox and blockchain.info. Then in April I started investing again in Bitcoin and I slowly realized that the economic model serves only for hording and isn't a viable financial day to day purchases, so I started to look out for Alts which provide exactly this, from all the top 40 coins I must say the only viable alternative that I found was Quark!

The issue with large purses that is being brought up is false because every coin has it, hell even Satoshi has 1 million bitcoins which are thought to be either lost or simply left untouched. Why is false, because Quark is inflationary in nature and with the million coins added annually it only means that there is no reason for speculating on its value and so the 1000 miners that were mining in the first 6 months probably sold all their quark already and those that bought at that early stage took all the risks, so its only fair they should be rewarded if the value goes up. You are among those who took all the risks and now you're losing so huge respect to those like you that hold their QRK and also try to get involved in the community.

[1714677146]

1714677146

[1714677146]

1714677146

[1714677146]

1714677146

[AliceWonder]

okay I think with the new forum up and what seems to be some positive attitudes from a few that seem to be core members in moving forward I think there is a decent chance of a bright future. I'm definitely more optimistic then I was 24 hours ago, as a n00b I like what I have seen last 24 hours.

[maok]

okay I think with the new forum up and what seems to be some positive attitudes from a few that seem to be core members in moving forward I think there is a decent chance of a bright future. I'm definitely more optimistic then I was 24 hours ago, as a n00b I like what I have seen last 24 hours.

you're part of the core members, everyone that gets involved and does something for Quark, even if they aren't members of our new forum or members of quark reddit are considered important & core members and should be recognized as such even if they don't have registered accounts here or there

By the way regarding the new forum, all props go to Cashmen which was the primary quarker that made it happen and Quarkfx which helped with that amazing design!

[reRaise]

Was looking at Cryptsy and noticed quarks volume is more than NXT and approaching Vertcoins volume. It's not much but was interesting to see

[maok]

Was looking at Cryptsy and noticed quarks volume is more than NXT and approaching Vertcoins volume. It's not much but was interesting to see

yea 20% of it was me moving around some funds for betting

[Y3llowb1ackbird]

Hi guys,

i am a top 29 quark holder with almost 1m quarks. I invested around $10k in Litecoin when they were around $2. I had around 6000 Litecoin which i sold all at between $24 and $26 each making $150k and exchanged them to BTC.

Before Quark i have been active in BTC-e and thats where i found out about Quark. Everyone was talking about it. I researched a little and was convinced to go big on it. I loved the brand, the logo, and the fact that pretty well known people in the industry were talking about it.

I don't know if you guys remember that picture at the forums someone posted which stated that there was a 100 BTC buy order for quark, well that was my order. I bought 500k quark at 0.00019 which made the price shoot up to 0.00032. So greed got me and i started to hold but then Bitcoin crashed and quark went with it. After that it went worse and 2 things that bothered me was kolins behaviour and developers inactivity especially lack of interaction with the community, but somehow i kept my fate and bought another 500k at lower prices.

So as you see i have lost around $140k (if i would sell) on quark, would i have been in Bitcoin i would have lost $50k. Meanwhile i have been giving around 40k quark to different projects like thunderclap where i gave away around 25k quark and apart from that i have been customising Quark subreddit to make it look nice. Notice that i'm just a trader and have no skills in coding and such so it's the best i can do. You might wonder why i don't give away much more, well the answer is simple i have already lost a lot and i'm certainly not rich in my private life. Although i still have fate in it and refuse to sell at these prices.

Regarding proof of burn i must say it sound pretty interesting, but doubts are naturally showing because it will be a new coin and will it be attractive amongst all these new coins, although with all these new scam coins coming out if one of them is not a scam with active and trustful dev team it will attract people. On the other hand quark already has settled itself and pretty well known, but then again as we know there are some issues with quark. I must say that i have seen great core members like quarkfx, vic, coinmama and couple others.

Hey Netnox,

I really feel for guys like you. I got in much later and barring a price correction have lost a decent chunk of cash, but nowhere near what you have. Glad to have you on board...hope we can get Quark back to a reasonable market cap:)

[Netnox]

Thanks yellow, i didn't trade with money i couldn't afford to lose. Keep up the good work

[cryptohunter]

Donating quark for new projects its worthless.What can a programmer do with 100k quarks if he can't even sell exchange them to fiat ?
You are worried for the big wallets ?Funny cause they gave shit about you and the community or did somebody saw a single one activly doing something for quark ?


Sorry to say it but you guys want to hold smart people in your community.The issue is smart people are not working as slaves for the big wallet holders as nothing else would describe it better.50 people with a 100k wallet each will try hard to get quark success so 1 faggot with his 33.000.000 wallet can take out all benefits.

Sorry you are not looking for a community you are looking for idiots.

How many times did the community called the big wallet holders for help so they could finish their projects on the old board?Did a single one answered ?


So stop worrying about this big wallet faggots who did nothing for quark expect mining at the first month and think more about members who are trying activly to push quark forward.
These activ members should get the most benefits out of quark and not faggots who want to make a quick buck by only hitting the mine button.

If you think these faggots shouldnt be touched because these are the rules so i can tell you there is also another rule that scam coins are dying and they wont get shit either

I kind of agree with some of your points. However, you simply can't take peoples coins away from them with a fork because nobody would ever trust you again in the future not to do the same.

However if were very smart with the companion coin through qrk only ipo or burn we could get them back involved.

Of course a super block dilutes the huge wallets share by 10% the same it does for everyone. The superblock i have said many times is a 10% donation by everyone with proportional returns and losses. It's like everyone decided to donate 10% of their qrk through dilution.

For this to work well at the current price you would need some great plans, whitepapers and some great developers on board that will work for an eventual 5% of the minting perhaps even a bit more.
So that perceived future of qrk is attractive enough to inspire some qrk purchases on the market and subsequent price increase.

I think this would be attractive to certain development teams because they normal get shouted at for a 1% premine - along with this you get all the qrk core that will now have funding behind them for projects.


QRKfx proof of burn idea has a lot of merit the more you think about it if it is done as he suggests.

However you will need a great development team on board first.

[quarkfx]

No...this is technically on top of Quark like CP, it doesn't need a hard fork. It would also make no sense to do it differently im this case which why I pointed out the irony that you were complaining about people with a lack of understanding.
Yeah, maybe you missed the idea. This is/was an (emergency) plan how we could solve the hashrate issue if the developer is not responding. Unlike simply forking Quark this would allow raising funds to work on the future of the currency. Quark may have good specs but still
1. A hashrate issue
2. Other coins have good specs at well and
2. As you pointed out on your own: the currency is worth nothing without the community. So I prefer another and presumeably better coin if the alternative is losing the community.

Yes but if Quark has hashrate problems so will the new coin which will rely on it. Other coins that have the same specs will make it on top if they have strong community, not if they have a social dev. In our case or in bitcoin's case for that matter, it doesn't hurt us if the main dev is gone or not responding as anyone can work on the code and improve it if they really want to. I don't hear bitcoiners complain about satoshi's lack of response in reaction to any of the issues that bitcoin has had after he left, so I don't see why we should complain about "developer is not responding" as we have a low hashrate  

Maok, I don´t have the time to debunk one argument and then the next and then the next. No, proof of burn doesn´t need a hardfork, no it doesn´t need an agreement by the dev and no, it doesn´t have to have Quarks hashrate issues. As long as there is no 51% attack in the Proof of burn phase there is no more need to rely on Quarks blockchain (even though this depends on the way you handle proof of burn).
And re: Satoshi comparison: Bitcoin reacted to Satoshis disappearance with the creation of the Foundation and that was why there was a lot of stability in the creation, maintenance and future perspective of BTC. Also as far as I remember Satoshi handed over the Github access to Gavin or someone else so there wasn´t even the need for a hardfork. If Max Guevara handed over (or shared) Github access I wouldn´t argue the way I do, but he didn´t. He is also still active as you could see from his fast reaction to the Heartbleed bug but the lack of responsiveness (or at least the reliance on individual members) is to me unacceptable (and btw. also not really suits the "decentral" character that we are/were promoting).

Anyway (I think I repeat this at least the 5th time) this move would certainly mean to start from 0, but at least we could make sure that we already have a community with a good network factor plus we can make sure that a real Foundation would exist from launch. Also Proof of Burn wouldn´t mean killing Quark as was suggested by some in this thread. Counterparty didn´t kill Bitcoin and is still kinda successful. It just means that people take a decision to go a different way and try a fresh start. I still believe this is the last matter we have, but I must say that it becomes more attractive to me.

As cryptohunter and others said, the question whether it´s worth to try it depends on the question whether it is possible to find a dedicated and talented developer (or more) who is willing to work with us.

[Giorgia]

i miss quark....nice coin...

[maok]

i miss quark....nice coin...

Well Quark is still here never too late to return 

[cryptohunter]

No...this is technically on top of Quark like CP, it doesn't need a hard fork. It would also make no sense to do it differently im this case which why I pointed out the irony that you were complaining about people with a lack of understanding.
Yeah, maybe you missed the idea. This is/was an (emergency) plan how we could solve the hashrate issue if the developer is not responding. Unlike simply forking Quark this would allow raising funds to work on the future of the currency. Quark may have good specs but still
1. A hashrate issue
2. Other coins have good specs at well and
2. As you pointed out on your own: the currency is worth nothing without the community. So I prefer another and presumeably better coin if the alternative is losing the community.

Yes but if Quark has hashrate problems so will the new coin which will rely on it. Other coins that have the same specs will make it on top if they have strong community, not if they have a social dev. In our case or in bitcoin's case for that matter, it doesn't hurt us if the main dev is gone or not responding as anyone can work on the code and improve it if they really want to. I don't hear bitcoiners complain about satoshi's lack of response in reaction to any of the issues that bitcoin has had after he left, so I don't see why we should complain about "developer is not responding" as we have a low hashrate  

Maok, I don´t have the time to debunk one argument and then the next and then the next. No, proof of burn doesn´t need a hardfork, no it doesn´t need an agreement by the dev and no, it doesn´t have to have Quarks hashrate issues. As long as there is no 51% attack in the Proof of burn phase there is no more need to rely on Quarks blockchain (even though this depends on the way you handle proof of burn).
And re: Satoshi comparison: Bitcoin reacted to Satoshis disappearance with the creation of the Foundation and that was why there was a lot of stability in the creation, maintenance and future perspective of BTC. Also as far as I remember Satoshi handed over the Github access to Gavin or someone else so there wasn´t even the need for a hardfork. If Max Guevara handed over (or shared) Github access I wouldn´t argue the way I do, but he didn´t. He is also still active as you could see from his fast reaction to the Heartbleed bug but the lack of responsiveness (or at least the reliance on individual members) is to me unacceptable (and btw. also not really suits the "decentral" character that we are/were promoting).

Anyway (I think I repeat this at least the 5th time) this move would certainly mean to start from 0, but at least we could make sure that we already have a community with a good network factor plus we can make sure that a real Foundation would exist from launch. Also Proof of Burn wouldn´t mean killing Quark as was suggested by some in this thread. Counterparty didn´t kill Bitcoin and is still kinda successful. It just means that people take a decision to go a different way and try a fresh start. I still believe this is the last matter we have, but I must say that it becomes more attractive to me.

As cryptohunter and others said, the question whether it´s worth to try it depends on the question whether it is possible to find a dedicated and talented developer (or more) who is willing to work with us.

we should essentially have zero issues finding a great dev for 5% of the total minting of the new coin released to them over time, some really high quality devs seem to working hard for 2% . Really they will get a lot of talent from the qrk core and a lot of interest from out side investors who were sitting there doing nothing for their huge pots of qrk but now will need to become a lot more active in order to burn the amount of qrk they are holding.

The funding for the core members that are currently working for nothing will also be much appreciated.

ROI projects should be the key focus once we have the investors attention again.

[maok]

Anyone is free to start any Quark related projects as long as it doesn't require changing the protocol. Investors will come if the community shows more positive attitude and they see we have a strong community. I'm not against PoB as long as it doesn't affect Quark so those who wish to switch to the new coin that relies on Quark network are free to do so, same with merge mining.

Ok.. noww to the moon!

[quarkfx]

Anyone is free to start any Quark related projects as long as it doesn't require changing the protocol. Investors will come if the community shows more positive attitude and they see we have a strong community. I'm not against PoB as long as it doesn't affect Quark so those who wish to switch to the new coin that relies on Quark network are free to do so, same with merge mining.

Ok.. noww to the moon!

I don't know why you are referring to merge mining. Of course people are free to convince other coins to give Quark additional hashrate.  This has anything to do with the latest complaints about merge mining (that is what appears to be a made up story). I personally won't support anything that is set up intransparently and I know others won't do neither.

[maok]

Anyone is free to start any Quark related projects as long as it doesn't require changing the protocol. Investors will come if the community shows more positive attitude and they see we have a strong community. I'm not against PoB as long as it doesn't affect Quark so those who wish to switch to the new coin that relies on Quark network are free to do so, same with merge mining.

Ok.. noww to the moon!

I don't know why you are referring to merge mining. Of course people are free to convince other coins to give Quark additional hashrate.  This has anything to do with the latest complaints about merge mining (that is what appears to be a made up story). I personally won't support anything that is set up intransparently and I know others won't do neither.

I won't support any coin other than Quark but I said that people are free to do whatever projects they want, Im sure they'll get enough support if that project is transparent

[Netnox]

So who is in favour of PoB. From what i've read from cryptohunters posts and quarkfx it looks promising, at least from an active devs perspective. Also it won't be a scam like all these new coins coming out so it may attract people if announced solidly.

[digitalindustry]

Hi guys,

i am a top 29 quark holder with almost 1m quarks. I invested around $10k in Litecoin when they were around $2. I had around 6000 Litecoin which i sold all at between $24 and $26 each making $150k and exchanged them to BTC.

Before Quark i have been active in BTC-e and that where i found out about Quark. Everyone was talking about it. I researched a little and was convinced to go big on it. I loved the brand, the logo, and the fact that pretty well known people in the industry were talking about it.

I don't know if you guys remember that picture at the forums someone posted which stated that there was a 100 BTC buy order for quark, well that was me. I bought 500k quark at 0.00019 which made the price shoot up to 0.00032. So greed got me and i started to hold but then Bitcoin crashed and quark went with it. After that it went worse and 1 thing that bothered me was kolins behaviour, but somehow i kept my fate and bought another 500k BTC at lower prices.

So as you see i have lost around $140k (if i would sell) on quark, would i have been in Bitcoin i would have lost $50k. Meanwhile i have been giving around 40k quark to different projects like thunderclap where i gave away around 25k quark and apart from that i have been customising Quark subreddit to make it look nice. Notice that i'm just a trader and have no skills in coding and such so it's the best i can do. You might wonder why i don't give away much more, well the answer is simple i have already lost a lot and i'm certainly not rich in my private life. Although i still have fate in it and refuse to sell at these prices.

Hi Netnox, I want to say I respect the faith you've given Quark. I only found out about Quark early last month, I had huge issues with bitcoin last year with some mining equipment almost getting ripped of $40K. Since then I haven't followed any activity in crypto world till late December when I caught up with all the news and I remembered I had some forgotten bitcoins in mtgox and blockchain.info. Then in April I started investing again in Bitcoin and I slowly realized that the economic model serves only for hording and isn't a viable financial day to day purchases, so I started to look out for Alts which provide exactly this, from all the top 40 coins I must say the only viable alternative that I found was Quark!

The issue with large purses that is being brought up is false because every coin has it, hell even Satoshi has 1 million bitcoins which are thought to be either lost or simply left untouched. Why is false, because Quark is inflationary in nature and with the million coins added annually it only means that there is no reason for speculating on its value and so the 1000 miners that were mining in the first 6 months probably sold all their quark already and those that bought at that early stage took all the risks, so its only fair they should be rewarded if the value goes up. You are among those who took all the risks and now you're losing so huge respect to those like you that hold their QRK and also try to get involved in the community.

Bam - and its so simple

+ 1

just so everyone knows most people understand this - they just don't voice their opinions, its been beautiful watching the trolling attempts all fro nothing they have wasted so much energy ha ha.

all that has happened is exactly what would have happened ha oh well i suppose if any of them were getting paid like our poor penniless eastern European friend "Thule" it was all worth it : D

[digitalindustry]

Hi guys,

i am a top 29 quark holder with almost 1m quarks. I invested around $10k in Litecoin when they were around $2. I had around 6000 Litecoin which i sold all at between $24 and $26 each making $150k and exchanged them to BTC.

Before Quark i have been active in BTC-e and thats where i found out about Quark. Everyone was talking about it. I researched a little and was convinced to go big on it. I loved the brand, the logo, and the fact that pretty well known people in the industry were talking about it.

I don't know if you guys remember that picture at the forums someone posted which stated that there was a 100 BTC buy order for quark, well that was my order. I bought 500k quark at 0.00019 which made the price shoot up to 0.00032. So greed got me and i started to hold but then Bitcoin crashed and quark went with it. After that it went worse and 2 things that bothered me was kolins behaviour and developers inactivity especially lack of interaction with the community, but somehow i kept my fate and bought another 500k at lower prices.

So as you see i have lost around $140k (if i would sell) on quark, would i have been in Bitcoin i would have lost $50k. Meanwhile i have been giving around 40k quark to different projects like thunderclap where i gave away around 25k quark and apart from that i have been customising Quark subreddit to make it look nice. Notice that i'm just a trader and have no skills in coding and such so it's the best i can do. You might wonder why i don't give away much more, well the answer is simple i have already lost a lot and i'm certainly not rich in my private life. Although i still have fate in it and refuse to sell at these prices.

Regarding proof of burn i must say it sound pretty interesting, but doubts are naturally showing because it will be a new coin and will it be attractive amongst all these new coins, although with all these new scam coins coming out if one of them is not a scam with active and trustful dev team it will attract people. On the other hand quark already has settled itself and pretty well known, but then again as we know there are some issues with quark. I must say that i have seen great core members like quarkfx, vic, coinmama and couple others.

Hey Netnox,

I really feel for guys like you. I got in much later and barring a price correction have lost a decent chunk of cash, but nowhere near what you have. Glad to have you on board...hope we can get Quark back to a reasonable market cap:)

Hey netox that's nice but, had :

1. the Developer not designed Quark in the way it was designed

and

2. I not introduced it to a  real market (not a circle jerk of Bitcoin and Litecoin)

Quark would not exist now, people don't put capital into currency because they do or don't "like" people - free market currency is related to connected energy so productive capacity.

I've always only ever worked towards those goals, the whole market is developing Bitcoin looks like a huge stagnating Shell form where i sit, whereas development is occurring in other alternative markets.

Quark's future as a continually developing protocol is pretty great i think.

[sdersdf2]

is this a pump and dump?

[quarkfx]

is this a pump and dump?

Maybe. Fact is, millions have been sold in the last time and immediately after some high buy order were placed.