[ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade

[Netnox]

is this a pump and dump?

I think so there hasn't been a news to cause a bullish rally, but hey crypto is crazy

[1714707319]

1714707319

[maok]

the whole market is developing Bitcoin looks like a huge stagnating Shell form where i sit, whereas development is occurring in other alternative markets.

Bitcoin stagnating shell ? where do you sit ? lol .. even current Quark wallet is being worked around the Bitcoin core wallet, the development its been flourishing for Bitcoin and we need it do so because it carries us further into mass adoption, people learn about crypto currencies every day THANKS to bitcoin, not thanks to Quark or Litecoin. I wish people will learn more about Quark because it provides much more than any other coin both as economic model and as protocol features but currently Bitcoin is driving the development in all areas, well at least from where I sit.

[digitalindustry]

the whole market is developing Bitcoin looks like a huge stagnating Shell form where i sit, whereas development is occurring in other alternative markets.

Bitcoin stagnating shell ? where do you sit ? lol .. even current Quark wallet is being worked around the Bitcoin core wallet, the development its been flourishing for Bitcoin and we need it do so because it carries us further into mass adoption, people learn about crypto currencies every day THANKS to bitcoin, not thanks to Quark or Litecoin. I wish people will learn more about Quark because it provides much more than any other coin both as economic model and as protocol features but currently Bitcoin is driving the development in all areas, well at least from where I sit.

Yeah it's an "economics" thing.

Indeed i guess time will tell.

[Coinmama2014]

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.

Sure you can...If a block reward is 20, @q 5 minutes... and a few "insiders" (mimi &friends) are mining the coins... 20x 12 x 24 x 30= 172k MimiCoin in one month!..

Add to this the longer term distribution for value and incentive to mine....and the plan to "re-brand" and then promote to increase the value and incentive, driving up difficulty...etc...

By appearances it adds up to an unfair advantage- And just for the scammy appearances alone it will likely be mined and dumped as soon as it achieves any perceivable value...

Unless "Mimi" will be convinced to turn over the majority stake of the mined coins for a transparent Foundation fund for infrastructure development, I don't see how this wouldn't be viewed as unfair. Still no one in the Foundation or QU or any core member for that matter appears to be aware of such a plan, and at this stage, would probably not even be achievable.

It was not my desire to make this issue public, until a blatant lie was told to everyone here (above) and on Reddit...And yet still the plan still appears to move forward on the MimicCoin thread. What unbelievable egos are involved here.

Once again there were so any different ways to go about launching something like this fairly and cleanly....

For example: having a fair start, with the Foundation and/or some trusted group of members transparently mining for infrastructure development- as well as the merge mine to increase hashrate...instead of this non-transparent deceptive b.s.

[digitalindustry]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ? 

[reRaise]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ?  

Lets be honest you updated everyone 1,5 months after the release and the core members didn't knew about it either. If Quark was a company you would be in trouble for it.

[kitaco]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ?  

It's not profitable to mine. Do the math. I did it a bunch of times on Reddit before getting my posts removed.

Here's one where I actually did the math and calculations on a [profitable] mining technique that really turns out to be not profitable for 2 years because of the initial costs. http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/28szbe/got_gridseed_burning_scrypt_at_hashcows_and/cie9rcj

People don't even know what Quark is anymore and it's so obsolete it's not even funny. New coins are coming out with TOR, Anonymous PoS, automatic coin mixing, etc. That's what people want. Quark has none of that.

I posted a link to the hashing algorithms the X## functions have. They have all of the hashing algorithms, and more. I just got ad hominem attacks.

It's sometimes fun to stir shit up, drop a little bomb - we all do it in life from time to time in life.

I tried to help, and people are realizing I was helping all along. I'll say it again. If you guys seriously want to continue with Quark, you need to get rid of Kolin.

Also, figure out who "Max" is. Do some digging. Nobody has ever known and it's concerning.

Always Remember:
"Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public." -Kolin  

[cryptohunter]

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.

Sure you can...If a block reward is 20, @q 5 minutes... and a few "insiders" (mimi &friends) are mining the coins... 20x 12 x 24 x 30= 172k MimiCoin in one month!..

Add to this the longer term distribution for value and incentive to mine....and the plan to "re-brand" and then promote to increase the value and incentive, driving up difficulty...etc...

By appearances it adds up to an unfair advantage- And just for the scammy appearances alone it will likely be mined and dumped as soon as it achieves any perceivable value...

Unless "Mimi" will be convinced to turn over the majority stake of the mined coins for a transparent Foundation fund for infrastructure development, I don't see how this wouldn't be viewed as unfair. Still no one in the Foundation or QU or any core member for that matter appears to be aware of such a plan, and at this stage, would probably not even be achievable.

It was not my desire to make this issue public, until a blatant lie was told to everyone here (above) and on Reddit...And yet still the plan still appears to move forward on the MimicCoin thread. What unbelievable egos are involved here.

Once again there were so any different ways to go about launching something like this fairly and cleanly....

For example: having a fair start, with the Foundation and/or some trusted group of members transparently mining for infrastructure development- as well as the merge mine to increase hashrate...instead of this non-transparent deceptive b.s.

Let's forget this mimi junk, that will never fly. Let's focus on the proof of burn idea from QRKfx, we need to set up some foundation members and get everything transparent. We need to bring some developers in and have some incentive for them to focus on and become invested in the future of qrk.

[cryptohunter]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ?  

It's not profitable to mine. Do the math. I did it a bunch of times on Reddit before getting my posts removed.

Here's one where I actually did the math and calculations on a [profitable] mining technique that really turns out to be not profitable for 2 years because of the initial costs. http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/28szbe/got_gridseed_burning_scrypt_at_hashcows_and/cie9rcj

People don't even know what Quark is anymore and it's so obsolete it's not even funny. New coins are coming out with TOR, Anonymous PoS, automatic coin mixing, etc. That's what people want. Quark has none of that.

I posted a link to the hashing algorithms the X## functions have. They have all of the hashing algorithms, and more. I just got ad hominem attacks.

It's sometimes fun to stir shit up, drop a little bomb - we all do it in life from time to time in life.

I tried to help, and people are realizing I was helping all along. I'll say it again. If you guys seriously want to continue with Quark, you need to get rid of Kolin.

Also, figure out who "Max" is. Do some digging. Nobody has ever known and it's concerning.

Always Remember:
"Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public." -Kolin  

Max is gone as far as i can tell. He probably started qrk as a project and got bored with it. I don't think he ever had many qrk so his interest obviously drained away quickly.

If you look at the start steve lamb sucked up huge amounts of easy qrk, i would bet max got a few blocks but not enough to fund the sort of dev evans or dan have. Actually he is probably the most silent developer of a coin of any note.

We need to focus on bringing in a new development team and pretty fast. I see qrk is doing great again today another 6% down. Tthe super block when i first mentioned it at 10% has been paid over about 3x now in losses alone because nobody is seeing qrk as anything but a dinosaur currency with no developer and no clear goals, projects  or anything else really.

[cryptohunter]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ? 

Come on Kolin, i like you since you made me rich (by my standards) but be serious this mimimi coin offers nothing to current qrk investors.

The foundation fund has been discussed and explained for the last 20 pages over and over. Yes, it is some central planning pool that will be transparent and used to build out features,services and start projects for qrk that the coin needs.

Mimimimi coin solves nothing and offers no advantage to current qrk holders/miners vs any other miner so why would the qrk community care less about it.

QRKfx proof of burn if handled correctly is exactly what qrk needs. 

Cloak, dark, xc, - these coins are not going away, i see them only taking larger and larger market share. They are well funded and have quality development teams and a big communities of supporters.

QRKFX have you talked to any serious developers about this new project?

[digitalindustry]

Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public.

This Crypto was listed on largest public Crypto forum on the face of the earth and its clear that most that contributed can not be called "sockpuppets"

Also mining goes out to 4 years before halving, you can speculate on what the market will do that great i like that , we can all speculate , we.can all mine or speculate and have an opinion make allegations feel sad or happy jump or dance.

That's the great thing you disagree?

Also you seem to be pretty caught up with the "foundation fund" what's that all about ?

What's the "foundation fund" do?  Is this some central planning pool ? 

Come on Kolin, i like you since you made me rich (by my standards) but be serious this mimimi coin offers nothing to current qrk investors.

The foundation fund has been discussed and explained for the last 20 pages over and over. Yes, it is some central planning pool that will be transparent and used to build out features,services and start projects for qrk that the coin needs.

Mimimimi coin solves nothing and offers no advantage to current qrk holders/miners vs any other miner so why would the qrk community care less about it.

QRKfx proof of burn if handled correctly is exactly what qrk needs. 

Cloak, dark, xc, - these coins are not going away, i see them only taking larger and larger market share. They are well funded and have quality development teams and a big communities of supporters.

QRKFX have you talked to any serious developers about this new project?

Rock out - and i encourage you to do the "proof of burn" or whatever it is .

i'm not stopping any member from doing whatever they want with their QRK if you want to burn in some manner , i'll be standing there warming my hands on the fire.

in the same sense also don't mine this other crypto, as of course it was released perfectly freely onto the forum and everyone knows about it, the difficulty last check was pretty low.

so if its a "conspiracy" its a good one, I like it because it was a fair start its not premined and it has good fundamentals - there could be others out there also ?

[digitalindustry]

it was never my intention to make anyone rich - if i wanted to do that i could cashed out ages ago.. my intention was to give people a chance.

the opposite of what corp Banks and their agents do.

i don't have to get up in the morning and justify enslavement and stagnation, waste and backwardness.

[quarkfx]

QRKFX have you talked to any serious developers about this new project?

I contacted the dev of MC2 as I personally find the concept convincing (look up the whitepaper in the btctalk thread) and it would allow implementing PoS/PoW (with preference given to PoW) that would allow coping with a low inflation rate. Anyway, MC2 isn´t ready and will probably only be ready by the end of the year, so it is not so likely that the devs answer will be positive. Anyway he said he planned to release the concept open source and with 2 months of f/t work (his estimation) it can be implemented in Quark. To be honest I currently don´t mind skipping Quarks algorithm as long there is a decent inflation rate, a decent transaction speed and up to date precautions against ASICs.

I wrote him a long explanation of how this could be done and think it´s fair to give him 2 weeks to answer. In the meantime we can and should look out for other developers but while it is certainly crucial to find a competent developer it is also important to find convincing specs. Just redoing Quark doesn´t make sense to me.

We are currently preparing for a group chat on Sunday next week, announcement is likely to follow on Reddit soon. We should discuss different approaches there so that every position has it´s place. In the end it will be the individual decision of everyone which way to go. I already said, that I am willing to moderate the session. Any help is appreciated.

[maok]

QRKfx proof of burn if handled correctly is exactly what qrk needs. 

+1

Yep it'll do good for quark only if the big purses will burn theirs so I agree we might see a very good effect on Quark price in the market  after the burning process

As for the new PoB coin, I don't see the incentives from a new user perspective knowing that those who had Quark gained an massive advantage in the initial distribution of the new coin.

As with these sort of alt coins investments, you have to stick with a coin that respects your way of thinking and hope for the best, I am a bettor so I don't mind losing but remember I only invested few bitcoins(~4) last month on Quark so I have nothing huge to lose, but if this move proves the wrong one, there will be others who will suffer much more than that. We need patience in deciding, even though admittedly some core quarkers(like Cashmen) seated and suffered for a long time.

As for the above comment "Anonymous PoS, automatic coin mixing" features that are searched in new coins: I mean, what a piece of bollocks. These features are NOT sought in the real world, proof of that is Bitcoin which doesn't have them. These are only speculated by those who don't have any allegiance to a set of principles and only try to profit from others which are already familiar in crypto world and may believe in them. For the average Joe these concepts mean nothing and if you want to grow as a coin you need to reach average Joe with features in crypto coins that are better than fiat cash.

Yes Quark is good for the real world economy because it doesn't allow specialized miners so we can maintain a relatively equal vote, yes Quark is good because of speed of transactions, yes Quark is good because it has a optimal inflation pre-set, yes Quark was the first to introduce these conditions so why should I move to another coin ?

Dev issue, yes Max is not responding to any emails but we can try and find new dev team, lets try and start raising funds for that, if that doesn't work we'll work from there on and if Quark proves that its resilient in time it will eventually start growing. Also when the massive dumps(like 2-3 today) stop flooding the market the price will might actually start growing bit by bit. Quark is not dead, its been made dead by members of community.

What we need is to stick united in community and have a discussion next Sunday with all supporters of Quark so we decide which way to go forward and see if the majority agrees or not. We can decide to find new dev team, we can decide to fork Quark in order to implement whatever features quarkers want, we can decide to go with PoB coin, etc lets just meet and decide. Those who are interested please mark here the dates when you're available: http://doodle.com/7kddvnndc8ympgu2 and if Sunday is not the most popular we can change it, but atm most core members are only available at that time.

[Coinmama2014]

Always Remember:
"Ah I'm all about public everything i do is public." -Kolin  

Yes Ill remember because nothing could be further from the truth--

As I said here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=657528.msg8122103#msg8122103

Kolin, if you are going to pretend you are not the OP of Mimic, at least remember to change your login back to Digital Industry when posting on other threads about NXT!
( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7545981#msg7545981)

Meantime, I am looking forward to the meeting next week to discuss REAL solutions: Finding a new Dev, fork, proof of Burn- lets decide the best options and move forward so we can get out from this cloud once and for all!!

[Thule]

Another question to quarkfx



What is going to happen with the big wallets in your "burn" options .What is going to happen with the
leading wallets which have over 33.000.000 coins ?Am asking cause this was the main reason the community broke.
Are these wallets getting destroyed ?

Second question would be did you even talked with Max that he is going to give access to quark so you guys can add a new dev team to it ?Is there any plan b if he is not going to provide these details ?


Am asking cause for me as many other old members it looked like Kolin and Max are coworking and are both related with Russia.So to say the truth i doubt these 2 guys will give away the control of quark

[LOL1993]

The Dev has dissapeared for a long time..What's wrong?

[Netnox]

The Dev has dissapeared for a long time..What's wrong?

Not true http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/2b9etg/from_max_gtesting_the_092_wallet_conversion/

But he should be more connected with the community

[quarkfx]

@Maok

Maok, I know you would prefer the community to "stick together", but you have to accept that parts of the community have no interest on working on this project under given circumstances. I will give you an overview with regard to your arguments:

Yep it'll do good for quark only if the big purses will burn theirs so I agree we might see a very good effect on Quark price in the market  after the burning process

Exactly, that´s the effect - for as long as it is possible to burn. The more people become interested in the coin, the more Quark is gaining value - once the burning period ends the price will correct to what the real prospect on Quark is. The people who rest with Quark will have to care for that.

As for the new PoB coin, I don't see the incentives from a new user perspective knowing that those who had Quark gained an massive advantage in the initial distribution of the new coin.

Massive advantage? As far as I know had Quark a fair distribution phase, didn´t it? (otherwise it wouldn´t make sense for you to support it, would it?)  
This is about giving Quark users who lost trust in the currency to start from scratch: The new users are the old users & value = prospect. If other users want to get in, fine, they can buy Quark, but that´s their business.

As with these sort of alt coins investments, you have to stick with a coin that respects your way of thinking and hope for the best, I am a bettor so I don't mind losing but remember I only invested few bitcoins(~4) last month on Quark so I have nothing huge to lose, but if this move proves the wrong one, there will be others who will suffer much more than that.

Unlike forking, creating a proof of burn coin is an individual decision and it is the same individual decision for those who burn Quark as it would be if they sell off. So, I guess you see that noone has the right to claim that others don´t sell their coins - you can´t construct a responsability for people who prefer to leave that other will have losses. I personally think that they do better to leave but this is everyone´s personal decision. Again: in a free market you can´t construct responsibilities as you attempt to do.

We need patience in deciding, even though admittedly some core quarkers(like Cashmen) seated and suffered for a long time.

We don´t need patience, we need a rational discussion and analysis. Part of this has been done and even if some of us will decide to create Proof-of-Burn there will be enough time to go on debating. I am willing to take part in this discussion but I will still follow this option and fathom out ways to proceed in this direction (why wouldn´t I?)

As for the above comment "Anonymous PoS, automatic coin mixing" features that are searched in new coins: I mean, what a piece of bollocks. These features are NOT sought in the real world, proof of that is Bitcoin which doesn't have them. These are only speculated by those who don't have any allegiance to a set of principles and only try to profit from others which are already familiar in crypto world and may believe in them. For the average Joe these concepts mean nothing and if you want to grow as a coin you need to reach average Joe with features in crypto coins that are better than fiat cash.

Who is the avarage Joe? Altcoins like Dogecoin helped to get Crypto more exposure to the avarage Joe and so will other Coins who manage to be sufficiently innovative. Dogecoin managed to do that with a concept that most people would call senseless. Anyway, I agree that this is not about creating a hype coin, but I disagree that all features that are not in Quark are senseless, e.g. Voting with Coins. Your point seems to be that Quark is already perfect. I disagree about that and I would disagree with every person who believes that any other coin is perfect. Things are in in a state of flux. Quarks current hashrate issue has different reasons: it is an effect of a slowly decreasing inflation rate, a decrease in prize given to speculation cycles and a lack of trust in further development - and probably other factors. So regarding your questions:

Yes Quark is good for the real world economy because it doesn't allow specialized miners so we can maintain a relatively equal vote,

So do other currencies

yes Quark is good because of speed of transactions

So do other currencies

, yes Quark is good because it has a optimal inflation pre-set

Optimal? Yes, a low inflation is good if you want to maintain value at slow growth, but "optimal"? I had my courses in macro economics, so I wonder on what considerations you base your statement? Fact is that there is no such as "optimal inflation" because money is a medium and mediums are object to discourse. It is possible that a slower inflation decrease could have been beneficial to Quark in the current situation and it is also possible that the current model would have more success than it has now under different circumstances. So, please, could you explain in what way Quark has an inflation pre-set that is alternative-less?

yes Quark was the first to introduce these conditions so why should I move to another coin ?

Because Quark has a hashrate issue that leads to a security issue. I agree that a merge mining coin would HELP in this situation but it wouldn´t SOLVE it. Quark would be dependent on the existence and sense of the merge mining coin(s). I guess you see that this is a substantial and not just a minor problem.

Dev issue, yes Max is not responding to any emails but we can try and find new dev team, lets try and start raising funds for that, if that doesn't work we'll work from there on and if Quark proves that its resilient in time it will eventually start growing. Also when the massive dumps(like 2-3 today) stop flooding the market the price will might actually start growing bit by bit.

Max is not as silent as people say, actually he contacted us today and asked for a meeting. I have always hopes that things in communication get better. I even think Max will cooperate with other devs. I have my concerns that we can rely on regular correspondence.

Quark is not dead, its been made dead by members of community.

Quark and it´s community are one and the same thing. There is no Quark without people who believe in it. Are you complaining about people having doubts?  


@Thule

What is going to happen with the big wallets in your "burn" options .What is going to happen with the
leading wallets which have over 33.000.000 coins ?Am asking cause this was the main reason the community broke.
Are these wallets getting destroyed ?

No, why would they? First off, I know you are obsessed with these large wallets, but it seems you´ve never considered that this wallets could be cold storage of exchanges. This has been proved for the largest wallets. Also, I don´t see any reason why you would like to do changes on the blockchain. There is no proof whatsoever that the blockchain has been manipulated. If you have, please provide.

Second question would be did you even talked with Max that he is going to give access to quark so you guys can add a new dev team to it ?Is there any plan b if he is not going to provide these details ?

This is not about changing Quark, it is about a Proof of Burn coin. Read about it. It does not need any agreement of any developer. It is also not "destroying" Quark. Quark can peacefully coexist with this coin.  

Am asking cause for me as many other old members it looked like Kolin and Max are coworking and are both related with Russia.So to say the truth i doubt these 2 guys will give away the control of quark

First off, it is not my intention to act on hearsay, so I will skip this information. I also don´t see why it would matter if either Kolin or Max were related to Russia.


Anyway, I can´t provide more than an idea. It is up to others to follow or help to make it possible. Everyone needs to take decision based on his or her own considerations. I can only motivate everyone to do the thinking on his and her own and not easily draw conclusions - also concerning my own statements.  We will have a meeting on Sunday 8th that will hopefully bring us together and allow us to move on in mutual understanding.

[maok]

@quarkfx glad that you took the time to respond. I won't comment on it because its your opinion vs mine but regarding the meeting, I believe its the 10th August not 8th ?


"Max is not as silent as people say, actually he contacted us today"

Strange that after you complained so much about Max unresponsiveness and the fact that he missed the last week meeting you're now saying that he's actually not as `silent as people say`.

Max communication I believe its highly unorthodox for an open source software like Quark, to be kept in such privacy and only communicate with select few. Usually people involved in open source have public mailing lists on which other users part of that community can participate by asking, giving ideas, it keeps the damn software open source and makes people feel welcomed in that community. Maybe thats the reason Quark has fallen so much in last months, with the private trello board and private communication between select few. I believe thats why we created the new forum, to solve exactly this problem, but alas you've given up on `development of quark` whatever that means...