Why Choose SecureCoin(SRC) Over QuarkCoin(QRK)? SRC is Much More Secure.

[baritus]

People keep asking me why they should use SRC instead of QRK and what advantage it has, so I've come up with a simple answer.

SRC is ~2x more secure than QRK and this gap is growing.

SRC current difficulty: ~7150
QRK current difficulty: ~3541

What does this mean for you? It's ~2x more likely for a 51% attack on QRK to be successful. This difficulty difference stems from the much higher hash power securing SRC.

How did this happen?
QRK's economic model gave the early holders most of the coins and purposefully weakened the block chain permanently. The low incentives for miners to secure the block chain are quickly making the network less secure as the miners move to SRC.

SRC on the other hand has a fair economic model that spreads rewards over years and prioritizes the longterm over short term gain and hoarding. Current miners are just as well rewarded as the early ones.  

What does the future hold?
This security gap is likely to grow as SRC maintains and grows its miner base while QRK continues to provide little miner incentive.

It's always good to stay informed about the security of the networks you're using.

[1715190150]

1715190150

[1715190150]

1715190150

[digicoin]

It is true technically but lots of people don't care about technical details 

[coinerer]

I would like to see the time graphs of the difficulties for both coins. Otherwise, it seems to me like trying to pump src at this moment.  

Pumpings are so secure

[baritus]

These are facts that can be checked on any pool or block explorer. You can use this one:
SRC: http://www2.coinmine.pl/src/index.php?page=statistics&action=pool
QRK: http://www2.coinmine.pl/qrk/index.php?page=statistics&action=pool

In fact, QRK's difficulty is even lower now.

Also, SRC does not need pumping with 24 hour volumes surpassing $1 million USD and the value doubling naturally in the last days. Need proof for that too? http://www.btc38.com/trade.html?btc38_trade_coin_name=src

[BitcoinFX]

...

QRK's economic model gave the early holders most of the coins and purposefully weakened the block chain permanently. The low incentives for miners to secure the block chain are quickly making the network less secure as the miners move to SRC.

SRC on the other hand has a fair economic model that spreads rewards over years and prioritizes the longterm over short term gain and hoarding. Current miners are just as well rewarded as the early ones.  

...

Hear, hear ! Those of us who are not totally Quark'ers mine Securecoin instead. 

[cosmoo]

this should get crossposted to http://digitalcoin.co/forums/ if it hasn't already

[baritus]

The difference is now even greater with SRC difficulty at 15k and QRK at 3.3k.

[samson]

I would like to see the time graphs of the difficulties for both coins. Otherwise, it seems to me like trying to pump src at this moment.  

Pumpings are so secure

I don't think anyone's ever really tried to 'pump' SRC.

You're seeing accumulation, I've found the only way to buy a lot of coins when there aren't tens of millions of them available is to buy it up using market orders, sometimes paying 10-25% more than the current price.

That's very different from pumping.

[baritus]

SRC current difficulty: 15,806.99115598
QRK current difficulty: 523.73529483

Use your money wisely. 

[markm]

Sounds like maybe both coins refused to implement merged mining, thus are both deliberately avoiding participating in making the entire hash type they use more secure.

So seems likely that both ought to be headed for the trash heap as investors seek out coins that are actually sincere about wanting to provide security thus avoid fragmenting the hash type's miner-base between coins, instead having all the coins merged so as to all benefit from each other's miner-base...

-MarkM-

[baritus]

Sounds like maybe both coins refused to implement merged mining, thus are both deliberately avoiding participating in making the entire hash type they use more secure.

So seems likely that both ought to be headed for the trash heap as investors seek out coins that are actually sincere about wanting to provide security thus avoid fragmenting the hash type's miner-base between coins, instead having all the coins merged so as to all benefit from each other's miner-base...

-MarkM-

Fragmenting? SRC has a majority of the hash rate due to fair compensation for miners.

QRK's miner base is so weak that it would not contribute much to SRC security, if anything.

[benthach]

never heard of this crap coin

[markm]

Sounds like maybe both coins refused to implement merged mining, thus are both deliberately avoiding participating in making the entire hash type they use more secure.

So seems likely that both ought to be headed for the trash heap as investors seek out coins that are actually sincere about wanting to provide security thus avoid fragmenting the hash type's miner-base between coins, instead having all the coins merged so as to all benefit from each other's miner-base...

-MarkM-

Fragmenting? SRC has a majority of the hash rate due to fair compensation for miners.

QRK's miner base is so weak that it would not contribute much to SRC security, if anything.

In other words you don't care about end users, screw them all if by doing so you can profit by making the coins they use unstable by sucking away the miners.

"Lets de-stabilise this hash-type so we can profit by pretending the people will be better off coming over to us."

Sound like, like DOGE did to Litecoin, your main contribution really is just to show that the hash type involved is acctually not secure because some new garbage can suck away the miners.

DOGE showed that litecoin was - and likely still is - so pathetically insecure that some stupid meme could whip up more hashing power than it had almost overnight.

II haven't seen a meme from you yet so I guess you are demonstrating that whatever hash type you guys use is so even more pathetically insecure than Litecoin that more hashing power than it had can be whipped up almost overnight without even using a meme!

For a while Litecoin and DOGE were like you guys, fuck the end uers, lets split up the miner base by refusing to merged mine.

Eventually though DOGE did implement merged mining so at last the litecoin miner-base can secure all the scrypt coins other than those that, like you apparently, do not actually give a damn about end users and still want to try to weaken the scrypt family in general by trying to fragment the scrypt miner-base...

With luck maybe some meme will hit soon, saying lets destroy all the non merged scrypt coins, instead of, like DOGE did, saying lets make yet another crapcoin to try to fragment the miner-base making all coins that use this algorithm that much less secure...

Litecoin was lucky the meme that hit them was just a make another crapcoin meme not a lets attack litecoin's chain and doublespend it meme...

-MarkM-

[baritus]

Sounds like maybe both coins refused to implement merged mining, thus are both deliberately avoiding participating in making the entire hash type they use more secure.

So seems likely that both ought to be headed for the trash heap as investors seek out coins that are actually sincere about wanting to provide security thus avoid fragmenting the hash type's miner-base between coins, instead having all the coins merged so as to all benefit from each other's miner-base...

-MarkM-

Fragmenting? SRC has a majority of the hash rate due to fair compensation for miners.

QRK's miner base is so weak that it would not contribute much to SRC security, if anything.

In other words you don't care about end users, screw them all if by doing so you can profit by making the coins they use unstable by sucking away the miners.

"Lets de-stabilise this hash-type so we can profit by pretending the people will be better off coming over to us."

Sound like, like DOGE did to Litecoin, your main contribution really is just to show that the hash type involved is acctually not secure because some new garbage can suck away the miners.

DOGE showed that litecoin was - and likely still is - so pathetically insecure that some stupid meme could whip up more hashing power than it had almost overnight.

II haven't seen a meme from you yet so I guess you are demonstrating that whatever hash type you guys use is so even more pathetically insecure than Litecoin that more hashing power than it had can be whipped up almost overnight without even using a meme!

For a while Litecoin and DOGE were like you guys, fuck the end uers, lets split up the miner base by refusing to merged mine.

Eventually though DOGE did implement merged mining so at last the litecoin miner-base can secure all the scrypt coins other than those that, like you apparently, do not actually give a damn about end users and still want to try to weaken the scrypt family in general by trying to fragment the scrypt miner-base...

With luck maybe some meme will hit soon, saying lets destroy all the non merged scrypt coins, instead of, like DOGE did, saying lets make yet another crapcoin to try to fragment the miner-base making all coins that use this algorithm that much less secure...

Litecoin was lucky the meme that hit them was just a make another crapcoin meme not a lets attack litecoin's chain and doublespend it meme...

-MarkM-

1. Communism failed. Competition is the source of innovation.

2. Why would anyone want to support the QRK pyramid scheme by giving it more power? They wouldn't. The QRK devs only cared about their own profits and their network is paying for it now.

3. Your example of Litecoin is irrelevant. Litecoin was not a pyramid scheme and thus working together with other non ponzi coins makes sense. Litecoin will also contribute back to them. QRK has nothing to offer SRC now or ever.