CLOSED.....

[Obfuscode]

POT sounds good to me.

Also I'd be for adding GPU-resistant algorithms (I know, this is just a race condition where we as dev have to keep changing the algorithms as soon as somebody managed to code a GPU-miner for it...) because it will increase the investment made into the coin and thus raise it's value on the longterm.

[derrend]

Proof of Take (POT)

That is a very innovative idea and I do like it but I can also imagine how some people might feel as though they are being coerced into participation under threat of having their coins taken away, but with that being said I do genuinely like the angle

Rather than punishing non-participants we can perhaps reward only the participants.

Well I guess it depends on what your ultimate aim for quarkbar is, the POT idea would be perfect if the point of quarkbar was to act as a short term value transfer mechanism, like converting some of my btc into qb before going for a night on the town. It would be like the cash I take in my wallet that I intend to spend rather than a store of value.

Perhaps this would be a good role for quarkbar?

Lots of possibilities

[derrend]

Also I'd be for adding GPU-resistant algorithms (I know, this is just a race condition where we as dev have to keep changing the algorithms as soon as somebody managed to code a GPU-miner for it...) because it will increase the investment made into the coin and thus raise it's value on the longterm.

+1

[SaintFrantic]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I personally don't agree with this. Why? First you need to be able to spend your coins on something and If you don't have that will crash the price down. Who really wants to put money in something and 5 days later to be loosing already. We need to think about something else even If its not POS. But destroy coin because I don't have what to buy with, waiting for price to rise or not wanting to spending them is not a good idea. I hope we could find some ways to invent something else.

I did vote for Something Experimental just to be noted!

[Jonesd]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I personally don't agree with this. Why? First you need to be able to spend your coins on something and If you don't have that will crash the price down. Who really wants to put money in something and 5 days later to be loosing already. We need to think about something else even If its not POS. But destroy coin because I don't have what to buy with, waiting for price to rise or not wanting to spending them is not a good idea. I hope we could find some ways to invent something else.

I did vote for Something Experimental just to be noted!

I have no intend to destroy coins, but partly redistribute them if the wallet rarely gets synched. This enables us to have the benefit that POS offers without creating new coins.

We're into this as a community so I believe this will spur the need for innovation, because it's in all our benefit to use the coins as money.

I believe the value lies in the practical use. Not in just storing it somewhere.

[Jonesd]

Also I'd be for adding GPU-resistant algorithms (I know, this is just a race condition where we as dev have to keep changing the algorithms as soon as somebody managed to code a GPU-miner for it...) because it will increase the investment made into the coin and thus raise it's value on the longterm.

+1

+1 as well:-)

[derrend]

dont forget to vote for Quarkbar on Qex here,
it's only 1 vote per user and bitquark is winning at the moment with just 4 votes
Some fella in our qex thread even commented for qb but didn't vote!

It's the button above the comment box that says 'like'

'kvd', if you're reading this... get your ass back there!

[Obfuscode]

dont forget to vote for Quarkbar on Qex here,
it's only 1 vote per user and bitquark is winning at the moment with just 4 votes
Some fella in our qex thread even commented for qb but didn't vote!

It's the button above the comment box that says 'like'

'kvd', if you're reading this... get your ass back there!

Wow their thread is terribly outdated!!!

Look at all that wrong info there... Nodes are wrong, Wallets are wrong, Pools are wrong, Explorer is wrong, Twitter is wrong...

Essentially everything but the name and logo is wrong :|

[derrend]

Wow their thread is terribly outdated!!!

I noticed that too, dropped a message to support on the qex homepage in the chat box.

[SaintFrantic]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I personally don't agree with this. Why? First you need to be able to spend your coins on something and If you don't have that will crash the price down. Who really wants to put money in something and 5 days later to be loosing already. We need to think about something else even If its not POS. But destroy coin because I don't have what to buy with, waiting for price to rise or not wanting to spending them is not a good idea. I hope we could find some ways to invent something else.

I did vote for Something Experimental just to be noted!

I have no intend to destroy coins, but partly redistribute them if the wallet rarely gets synched. This enables us to have the benefit that POS offers without creating new coins.

We're into this as a community so I believe this will spur the need for innovation, because it's in all our benefit to use the coins as money.

I believe the value lies in the practical use. Not in just storing it somewhere.

What will stop someone to create numerous wallet address and transfer from one to the other?

[Obfuscode]

I noticed that too, dropped a message to support on the qex homepage in the chat box.

Thanks mate!

[shursight]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I personally don't agree with this. Why? First you need to be able to spend your coins on something and If you don't have that will crash the price down. Who really wants to put money in something and 5 days later to be loosing already. We need to think about something else even If its not POS. But destroy coin because I don't have what to buy with, waiting for price to rise or not wanting to spending them is not a good idea. I hope we could find some ways to invent something else.

I did vote for Something Experimental just to be noted!

I have no intend to destroy coins, but partly redistribute them if the wallet rarely gets synched. This enables us to have the benefit that POS offers without creating new coins.

We're into this as a community so I believe this will spur the need for innovation, because it's in all our benefit to use the coins as money.

I believe the value lies in the practical use. Not in just storing it somewhere.

I would have to agree with saintfrantic on this one. Although I agree we are in this as a community we need to make sure we stay a strong community and grow. What we need to be doing is figuring out a way to get global awareness and credibility. I actually voted to keep quarkbar as it is for now. It has very strong charactoristics and now has a super Dev team that can keep things running smooth. To an investor, the idea that if I invest in a coin and then open my wallet one day to find that some of my coins were taken, I would not be a very happy man and would probly get out of that market. Imagine if you opened your bitcoin wallet to find that you lost a bunch, just because you didn't sync your wallet.

Instead, We should start focusing on creating a good use for quarkbar. Turn it into a recognized useful currency.

Lets do something as a community to get people talking about quarkbar.

Quarkbar is a strong coin now. I think its community work that is going to make quarkbar stronger now.

[SaintFrantic]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I personally don't agree with this. Why? First you need to be able to spend your coins on something and If you don't have that will crash the price down. Who really wants to put money in something and 5 days later to be loosing already. We need to think about something else even If its not POS. But destroy coin because I don't have what to buy with, waiting for price to rise or not wanting to spending them is not a good idea. I hope we could find some ways to invent something else.

I did vote for Something Experimental just to be noted!

I have no intend to destroy coins, but partly redistribute them if the wallet rarely gets synched. This enables us to have the benefit that POS offers without creating new coins.

We're into this as a community so I believe this will spur the need for innovation, because it's in all our benefit to use the coins as money.

I believe the value lies in the practical use. Not in just storing it somewhere.

I would have to agree with saintfrantic on this one. Although I agree we are in this as a community we need to make sure we stay a strong community and grow. What we need to be doing is figuring out a way to get global awareness and credibility. I actually voted to keep quarkbar as it is for now. It has very strong charactoristics and now has a super Dev team that can keep things running smooth. To an investor, the idea that if I invest in a coin and then open my wallet one day to find that some of my coins were taken, I would not be a very happy man and would probly get out of that market. Imagine if you opened your bitcoin wallet to find that you lost a bunch, just because you didn't sync your wallet.

Instead, We should start focusing on creating a good use for quarkbar. Turn it into a recognized useful currency.

Lets do something as a community to get people talking about quarkbar.

Quarkbar is a strong coin now. I think its community work that is going to make quarkbar stronger now.

Absolutely my point. We need some brainstorming.

[BitQuark]

POT sounds good to me.

Also I'd be for adding GPU-resistant algorithms (I know, this is just a race condition where we as dev have to keep changing the algorithms as soon as somebody managed to code a GPU-miner for it...) because it will increase the investment made into the coin and thus raise it's value on the longterm.

I talked with JoesD about an idea that I had to make quark algo coins GPU-resistant. I want to see if it's possible to integrate something like N-factor into the quark algo. This way it would limit the amount of GPU hashing power on the coin.

[derrend]

I actually voted to keep quarkbar as it is for now.

Innovation in my opinion is the first priority in any space, especially in one as competitive as this.
If the above quoted statement had been posed to either Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg you would have you fired on the spot.

[SaintFrantic]

I actually voted to keep quarkbar as it is for now.

Innovation in my opinion is the first priority in any space, especially in one as competitive as this.
If the above quoted statement had been posed to either Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg you would have you fired on the spot.

Can someone explain how is the POS actually working? It's quite random, isn't? Is it not better to have fixed interest rate?

[shursight]

I actually voted to keep quarkbar as it is for now.

Innovation in my opinion is the first priority in any space, especially in one as competitive as this.
If the above quoted statement had been posed to either Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg you would have you fired on the spot.

well its a good thing I dont work for apple or facebook then. Lol .

I am in marketing, at some point, quarkbar will need to be sold as a viable currency that people use to buy things. It is great to be an innovative coin, yes, but the whole point of a currency is finding a way to use it. I feel that is the next step needed.

Most people want money so they can spend it. In the end, quarkbar will be strong and valuable because people use it as money.

We have almost 70% of the coins mined. This is the perfect time to focus on turning it into money.

I am actually working on an idea that could raise global awareness about quarkbar and possibly gaine some mainsream media attention.

Plus I would be interested in hearing any ideas that anybody else has also. If anyone wants to PM me maybe we can exchange some ideas.

[tom14cat14]

Regarding PoS...I'm not a fan of it

Jonesd said something similar...

Just out of interest Jonesd and Obfuscode, in your professional opinions what feature would you suggest for the coin at this stage?

We're basically looking for a way to have the network continue to support transactions once all coins are mined. POS is a way to do this, but it stimulates people to not spend their coins.

Proof of Take (POT)
I personally was thinking of doing the opposite of POS, where coins deteriorate over time if they are stored and not used. Part of the stored unused coins will be redistributed over the miners in this case. When a wallet has been offline for a long time and comes online again it can be punished with a certain deterioration of funds (1% / week up to maximum of 10% or something). In this scenario, people can also prevent deterioration by synching the wallet at least once a week.

This has the following benefits:
- Transactions can be free: This would make it possible to replace the fee on transactions with a fee on keeping the coins offline.
- Decrease only for not-contributing part: Active people are in the clear, but stored funds will decrease over time.
- No inflation: The coins get redistributed, but the total amount does not have to increase.

I would be more motivated to be part of the network in such a case!

Probably a lot of things to say against it, but idea is still in early stage.

I like thinking out of the box. However I do not like this idea. I think it would crash the price. I know I for one would dump all of my coins if this was implemented. Not using that as a threat just saying what I would do so I am guessing there will at least be a portion that does the same.

[Jonesd]

We will probably have to first find out what the problem is if we want to put solutions into effect.

Maybe it is better to ask what the most important aim is that we want to chase at the moment:
1. Make it harder to mine this coin by GPU (more algorithms).
2. Coin needs to have a use --> markets or POT?
3. Investors must like the coin --> POS
4. Most innovative coin --> interesting for marketing

What do you think is the most important thing we should focus on?

[tom14cat14]

We will probably have to first find out what the problem is if we want to put solutions into effect.

Maybe it is better to ask what the most important aim is that we want to chase at the moment:
1. Make it harder to mine this coin by GPU (more algorithms).
2. Coin needs to have a use --> markets or POT?
3. Investors must like the coin --> POS
4. Most innovative coin --> interesting for marketing

What do you think is the most important thing we should focus on?

I think Investors must like the coin followed very closely by need a market for the coin. The coin has to be worth something for real maket places to be interested in the coin.