Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2024, 12:07:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Quark community development project proposal - add your thoughts  (Read 2268 times)
quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 02:48:31 PM
 #1

This post is dedicated to Quark community members but you can certainly apply the proposal to your own community if you are not holding any Quarks, so feel free to read and contribute Wink

* * * * * * *

As we all know any form of crisis has its positive aspects as it may unleash forces that allow to create new things. In the last months Quark experienced problems due to

a) an unclear development perspective and
b) a decrease of the hashrate

I and many others don´t believe that Quark will recover from waiting and doing nothing, but I also believe that the community has the potential to create something on the basis of Quark that raises it´s value. I am convinced that we need a project that involves massive redistribution and work on long but also mid-term perspectives. We are currently discussing different approaches to cope with the “technical” issues in this thread. In this thread I want to present a proposal how the Quark community (any maybe other communities) can interact and take decisions in the future and I want to invite everyone to add thoughts & to develop or improve the idea.

As you may see, the post is somewhat long, so if you like, grab a coffee and read or jump to whatever paragraph you like Smiley

Taking stock: Community starts with Communication

As we all know communication is the key to the development of a solid community. As most coins, Quark established several forums at the beginning. One of the reasons why they failed in my opinion, was the inability to gather people in one place. Many people were active on 3 forums + Reddit, but for most people this led to confusion and people stopped contributing as the community got smaller after a grand hype in December. Beside the fact that some people simply leave the community because they had no interest in Quark anymore, there were other reasons why people were and are not contributing:

a) there is a lack of structure
b) there is small revenue (especially when activity is getting lower [talking to yourself kinda seems senseless])

The second argument is crucial as inactive platforms will get inactive faster, which causes more people to leave and so on. Beside the hashrate issue that was already addressed on the other thread, the relevance of the community can´t be underestimated. Traders come and go, but a real community stays and can keep things up when everything looks bad. Actually I feel that is what currently happens, but the core community is not as big as it could be.

The Quark community has a Foundation (with me being associated) that has theoretically the ability to structurize discourse and set incentives, but the structure is neither transparent nor democratic with respect to the rest of the community. This is why I believe that an improvement of community structures is necessary and will eventually contribute to the value of the currency itself.

Quark Development: Paying developers - easy as that


Probably the shortest bullet point: If we want good developers I believe they should get paid. This raises their stakes and own interest in the currency. However, I neither believe that this payment should happen via a massive premine (as has been carried out by many currencies) nor as one single payout, but as a payment on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly) after reporting the work that has been done (see also Expense allowance below).  Also development shouldn´t be kept in the hands of a single person that has no obligations towards the community as it contradicts the idea of decentralization.

Quark Foundation: Structure creates trust

Cryptocurrencies are decentralized (at least most), insofar it may sound incoherent to call for more structure (which usually includes centralization). However, if you think twice, in the early years all cryptocommunities are somehow based on the actions and initiatives of a few individuals only - they are not really decentralized. They mostly depend on people who haven´t been elected and will take their decision independently from a community vote (which also usually doesn´t exist). This is the reason why cryptocommunities like Bitcoin or recently Doge created Foundations who can moderate between the community and the people who work on the code and infrastructure. Maybe at a later moment this will change, but for now a solid, transparent and democratic structure is necessary to get things done.

In the Quark community there are several taskforces that were working independently but keeping a vivid exchange between members. Most of this happened via mail and internal forums because it was more convenient than on a forum, but I believe this needs to be changed to make all of our work transparent to everyone and allow for more participation (in many cases people wouldn´t even know that “things were moving” - this is alarming in my opinion).

I suggested in different discussions to unite the taskforces under the umbrella of the Quark Foundation



This alone won´t be enough. The Foundation needs to be recreated as a solid part of the community. E.g. currently it is not transparent how people become part of the Foundation. Basically people from the Foundation agree on who else can become part of it where those who are members are people who actually work actively on infrastructure and community. I propose the Foundation to rather be a group of people who are long-term supporters who want to participate in decision taking but not necessarily are nerds like me who spend a lot of time in a hopeless venture like this Smiley So being part doesn´t necessarily need people to actively participate all of the time: funding or simply gathering is also support and helps a lot. While I don´t think the Foundation can be recreated in one move, I suggest the following first steps, with more to follow, supported/carried out by the Foundation:

Quark Foundation: Financial contribution allows for voting


1. Everyone can become member of the Foundation by paying an equivalent of 20-200 USD (or X) in QRK (10 different levels = up to 10 votes) as deposit
2. Yearly contribution depends on the level and is 20% of the current cost for one level.
3. Members can leave the foundation at any moment and will receive their funds within 4 weeks after leaving (to prevent leaving to sell Quarks for quick profits/panic selling).
4. Leaving and Staying is rewarded:
Leaving before first year ends >> deposit refunded -30%
Leaving before 2nd year ends >> deposit refunded -15%
Leaving before 3rd year ends >> deposit refunded -7.5%
Leaving before 4th year ends >> deposit refunded -3%
After 5th year >> + 10% reward on deposit
After 6th year >> + 15% reward on deposit
After 7th year >> +20% on deposit 20% (no yearly contribution from 7th year on)

Quark Foundation: Everyone can become member of the board


Everyone who is part of the Foundation can become elected member of the board. The election is publicly carried out by all members of Foundation. The foundational board covers the departments and by that integrates the current teams:

1. Core development (former QuarkFoundation)
2. Public Relations (former QuarkPress & QuarkLabs)
3. Project development (former QuarkPlanet)
4. Support & Promotion (former QuarkUniverse)
+ 2 Treasurers with multisig keys

Quark Foundation: Expense allowance & Infrastructure

1. The yearly contribution is used to
a) pay an expense allowance to the representants of the Foundation and
b) support infrastructure (server cost etc.)
2. Expense allowances are paid quarterly after members handed in a report of their work.
3. The money is controlled by two treasurers with multisig keys. They report quarterly on the current finances.

Quark inc.: ROI projects

Whereas the Quark Foundation cares for the core functionality of Quark there can be projects that are only based on Quark and that can therefore be handled independently from the Foundation. Quark inc. (working title) would be a group of people who invest in projects that allow for revenue.

1. In Quark inc. you can buy shares for 1000 QRK a piece. You can buy as many shares as you like.
2. The Quark inc. has two treasurers who are also moderators of the Quark inc. forum.
3. The percentage of shares you hold in relation to the whole amount gives you an equivalent of votes on the Quark inc. forum.
4. On the forum, everyone can propose a project and Quark inc. holders can vote for or against them. If a project reached a quorum of 25% and the mayority of pro votes it reaches development status.
5. In development status the project initiator needs to layout his ideas and present a business plan within 30 days. If he_she fails to do so the project is cancled. If the work is handed in correctly it needs to reach the quorum of 25% and the mayority of pro votes to get funded.

This way people can develop projects together with the community and have the whole process as transparent as possible.

Quark Forum: Rewarding community creators

Beside a functional currency & hashrate support + trader recognition the ability to create a successful community relies heavily on community builders. Currently those people who work their ass of on forums and email lists aren´t rewarded. Bounties are also usually rather paid to those who carry out projects, not to those who initiated debates to get projects going. A renewed forum with a feedback system can reward those who actively participate in discussions and get positive feedback from others. The forum may replace the old forum (forum.qrk.cc) and parts of what Reddit and BTCtalk are used for at the moment.

We are currently testing a forum that allows not only feedback but already supports a credit system that can be translated to cryptocurrencies. (If you are a PHP coder, your help is much wanted)

1. Members of the forum get credits for agreement depending on the rank of the people who agree or disagree with an opinion
2. First 20 (or X) Members are paid on a monthly basis from a faucet that is loaded by donations (I suggest ~5000 QRK monthly)

* * * * * * * *

I wont get more into detail as I know this was already a long read but just to be clear on the costs of all this: I believe that we need to raise an estimated amount of ~ 2 Million Quarks for this kind of reforms. I know, this are not peanuts but a substantial amount of money. However, raising this amount can be a crucial motor to the value of the currency and it´s infrastructure. It also means a better distribution which will diminish the risk of large dumps and insofar creates trust between members.

I know that there are large holders listening: If everyone of us donates 5-10% of our QRK this won´t affect us a lot financially (especially since none of the large wallets can dump without causing the exchange rate to drop substantially), but it will allow getting things done and at the same time to get more people into the community.

I´d personally give all my Quarks into this project and buy an equal amount from the market. How bout you?

As I mentioned, feel free to comment on whatever aspect you like. I am interested in any sort of discussion Wink
coinerer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 608


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 03:18:32 PM
 #2

This post is dedicated to Quark community members but you can certainly apply the proposal to your own community if you are not holding any Quarks, so feel free to read and contribute Wink

...


I´d personally give all my Quarks into this project and buy an equal amount from the market. How bout you?

As I mentioned, feel free to comment on whatever aspect you like. I am interested in any sort of discussion Wink


Like reading the newspapers from the last page. Smiley

It seems you are betting on the price fall. Smiley


Let's be serious now. Every good effort for the good of Quark community is welcome.

I made new Quark Wallet and simple page at http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/  with latest libraries used.  Direct link on Windows wallet at

                                                      http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/quarkcoin-0.8.3.24.zip

Everybody could try it!



My work can be supported with donation (if you like it) to  QuarkCoin WalletAddress:    


                                                                      QgTsq3KKoCRBqzY7Z9WqHiNErP6yghky1S


quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
Last edit: July 09, 2014, 05:05:51 PM by quarkfx
 #3

Like reading the newspapers from the last page. Smiley

It seems you are betting on the price fall. Smiley


Not betting, just looking on numbers. I never held a lot of Quarks and I don´t mind to buy the same amount again for this project. Most of my contribution was related to time I spent discussing and work that I have done.

Quote
I made new Quark Wallet and simple page at http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/  with latest libraries used.  
Everybody could try it!


Sorry to ask like this, but how come noone know about this wallet project? Just because I won´t install wallets from unknown sources.

EDIT: also forgot to ask: what is the purpose of the Wallet and what are the differences to the original Wallet?
BTMan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100

BTMan


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
 #4

QUARK COIN IS VERY GOOD FOR CPU MINER.

ANN Monitor System http://ann.ymq123.com  (chrome Or IE7-IE9)
Donation BTC: 1F4zvgxAqpbCktYp8oKeupjY2oL3JWVFa3      QQ Group: 229207518
ANN监控系统创世帖 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=657764.0
Ngaio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 04:16:07 PM
 #5

This post is dedicated to Quark community members but you can certainly apply the proposal to your own community if you are not holding any Quarks, so feel free to read and contribute Wink


Quark Development: Paying developers - easy as that


Probably the shortest bullet point: If we want good developers I believe they should get paid. This raises their stakes and own interest in the currency. However, I neither believe that this payment should happen via a massive premine (as has been carried out by many currencies) nor as one single payout, but as a payment on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly) after reporting the work that has been done (see also Expense allowance below).  Also development shouldn´t be kept in the hands of a single person that has no obligations towards the community as it contradicts the idea of decentralization.

As I mentioned, feel free to comment on whatever aspect you like. I am interested in any sort of discussion Wink

Spot on! I would add that payment should be fiat currency (at reasonable commercial rates) with a bounty in the crypto-currency offered as an optional alternative, or perhaps a 50/50 split. C++ programming skills are not arrived at easily and should be rewarded appropriately. The dev team should also include at least one member whose primary role focused on supporting and maintaining the community; marketing the currency and communicating the goals are equally important as technical development.
Ngaio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 04:24:10 PM
 #6

And think about creating a contract that include details of exactly what the developer is required to do, the timescale and sign-off procedures.
quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 04:37:57 PM
 #7

This post is dedicated to Quark community members but you can certainly apply the proposal to your own community if you are not holding any Quarks, so feel free to read and contribute Wink


Quark Development: Paying developers - easy as that


Probably the shortest bullet point: If we want good developers I believe they should get paid. This raises their stakes and own interest in the currency. However, I neither believe that this payment should happen via a massive premine (as has been carried out by many currencies) nor as one single payout, but as a payment on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly) after reporting the work that has been done (see also Expense allowance below).  Also development shouldn´t be kept in the hands of a single person that has no obligations towards the community as it contradicts the idea of decentralization.

As I mentioned, feel free to comment on whatever aspect you like. I am interested in any sort of discussion Wink

Spot on! I would add that payment should be fiat currency (at reasonable commercial rates) with a bounty in the crypto-currency offered as an optional alternative, or perhaps a 50/50 split. C++ programming skills are not arrived at easily and should be rewarded appropriately. The dev team should also include at least one member whose primary role focused on supporting and maintaining the community; marketing the currency and communicating the goals are equally important as technical development.


No, I am strongly against paying a developer in fiat. Why would any community do that? We need developers who are dedicated to Quark. If they believe in the future of the currency they will be fine with a decent salery in QRK. If they prefer Fiat they obviously aren't interested in long term involvement or don't trust in the project. In both cases I wouldn't opt for this dev.
coinerer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 608


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 04:38:47 PM
 #8


Quote
Let's be serious now. Every good effort for the good of Quark community is welcome.



I made new Quark Wallet and simple page at http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/  with latest libraries used.   Direct link on Windows wallet at

                                                      http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/quarkcoin-0.8.3.24.zip

Everybody could try it!



My work can be supported with donation (if you like it) to  QuarkCoin WalletAddress:    


                                                                      QgTsq3KKoCRBqzY7Z9WqHiNErP6yghky1S

Sorry to ask like this, but how come noone know about this wallet project? Just because I won´t install wallets from unknown sources.

EDIT: also forgot to ask: what is the purpose of the Wallet and what are the differences to the original Wallet?


Source code for QuarkCoin is taken from the original MaxGuevara github. Source codes for all other libraries are from their websites. All source codes are latest versions except for Qt which is one version before last one.

So, this QuarkCoin Wallet contains all the latest features (and bug corrections ofc)  Smiley

I worked hard to set up all for compilations at Windows (not at Linux) and researched many other configurations. Maybe all that work is not needed for Linux cross-compilations. Smiley


quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
 #9

Source code for QuarkCoin is taken from the original MaxGuevara github. Source codes for all other libraries are from their websites. All source codes are latest versions except for Qt which is one version before last one.

So, this QuarkCoin Wallet contains all the latest features (and bug corrections ofc)  Smiley

I worked hard to set up all for compilations at Windows (not at Linux) and researched many other configurations. Maybe all that work is not needed for Linux cross-compilations. Smiley

Uhm, so you basically compiled the github sources? So how does it differ from the current releases that are hosted on qrk.cc?

Also, maybe we should keep this away from this discussion because it is not directly related.
Ngaio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 05:12:29 PM
 #10

This post is dedicated to Quark community members but you can certainly apply the proposal to your own community if you are not holding any Quarks, so feel free to read and contribute Wink


Quark Development: Paying developers - easy as that


Probably the shortest bullet point: If we want good developers I believe they should get paid. This raises their stakes and own interest in the currency. However, I neither believe that this payment should happen via a massive premine (as has been carried out by many currencies) nor as one single payout, but as a payment on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly) after reporting the work that has been done (see also Expense allowance below).  Also development shouldn´t be kept in the hands of a single person that has no obligations towards the community as it contradicts the idea of decentralization.

As I mentioned, feel free to comment on whatever aspect you like. I am interested in any sort of discussion Wink

Spot on! I would add that payment should be fiat currency (at reasonable commercial rates) with a bounty in the crypto-currency offered as an optional alternative, or perhaps a 50/50 split. C++ programming skills are not arrived at easily and should be rewarded appropriately. The dev team should also include at least one member whose primary role focused on supporting and maintaining the community; marketing the currency and communicating the goals are equally important as technical development.

No, I am strongly against paying a developer in fiat. Why would any community do that? We need developers who are dedicated to Quark. If they believe in the future of the currency they will be fine with a decent salery in QRK. If they prefer Fiat they obviously aren't interested in long term involvement or don't trust in the project. In both cases I wouldn't opt for this dev.

I would certainly not rule out partial payment in crypto, but maintain that fiat currency is a must if you are seeking a professional - this is what they do for a living and (sadly) you can't pay the rent/mortgage/utility bills in Quark (or bitcoin for that matter). However, if the development work is to be done on a hobby/as-and-when-time-allows basis then crypto bounties are fine, but I can't see that supporting a concerted effort to lift a coin out of the doldrums.



digitalindustry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


‘Try to be nice’


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 05:13:05 PM
 #11


Quote
Let's be serious now. Every good effort for the good of Quark community is welcome.



I made new Quark Wallet and simple page at http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/  with latest libraries used.   Direct link on Windows wallet at

                                                      http://quarkcoin.orgfree.com/quarkcoin-0.8.3.24.zip

Everybody could try it!



My work can be supported with donation (if you like it) to  QuarkCoin WalletAddress:    


                                                                      QgTsq3KKoCRBqzY7Z9WqHiNErP6yghky1S

Sorry to ask like this, but how come noone know about this wallet project? Just because I won´t install wallets from unknown sources.

EDIT: also forgot to ask: what is the purpose of the Wallet and what are the differences to the original Wallet?


Source code for QuarkCoin is taken from the original MaxGuevara github. Source codes for all other libraries are from their websites. All source codes are latest versions except for Qt which is one version before last one.

So, this QuarkCoin Wallet contains all the latest features (and bug corrections ofc)  Smiley

I worked hard to set up all for compilations at Windows (not at Linux) and researched many other configurations. Maybe all that work is not needed for Linux cross-compilations. Smiley


Max and another C++ coder where just working on this are you talking about update ?

- Twitter @Kolin_Quark
digitalindustry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


‘Try to be nice’


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 05:18:50 PM
 #12

unfortunately i'm the guy that doesn't see a huge problem - price goes down and people start getting a bit "island" on everyone.

however i think the hash could be looked at and to this degree we should come to a solution - i personally welcome anyone's opinion.

some points :

- I don't think the old type of democracy fits cryptocurrency 

- nothing has been done or achieved though a "democracy type vote"

- one PCP one vote.

- free market chaos.

centralized crypto play a short game the long game belongs to the real cryptos, the centralized game is a very old one, its built on "confidence and faith"

unfortunately both are shifting.

- Twitter @Kolin_Quark
digitalindustry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


‘Try to be nice’


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
 #13

however I support everything you said.

- Twitter @Kolin_Quark
quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 05:44:47 PM
Last edit: July 09, 2014, 05:57:19 PM by quarkfx
 #14


I would certainly not rule out partial payment in crypto, but maintain that fiat currency is a must if you are seeking a professional - this is what they do for a living and (sadly) you can't pay the rent/mortgage/utility bills in Quark (or bitcoin for that matter). However, if the development work is to be done on a hobby/as-and-when-time-allows basis then crypto bounties are fine, but I can't see that supporting a concerted effort to lift a coin out of the doldrums.


I would take things as they are: Quark - like all other Altcoins - is an experiment, they are not (yet) serious business even if some pretend it to be different. I would even argue that this can be said for Bitcoin. I rather prefer a hobby developer who needs more time to do things but is dedicated to the project than a professional who only works once he or she gets paid in fiat.

I also say this because the developers aren´t the only ones who make a currency successful and invest time into the project: without good promo, good networking, good miners etc. the currency is anything but just another quick trade. So the same as you are right with arguing that the developers need money for a living you can say that core members need money for a living. We all do it in our sparetime as a donation to the community and everyone who holds theoretically profits.

So, yes, I would rather go the "indie" way than another. Imho the only projects who can afford to pay out "real" saleries are those with large IPOs or comparable approaches (Darkcoin etc.). While this is definitely an approach that can be promising (can also be used to exploit) I think it is still worth a try to start with community driven payments. There is a lot of competition on the market but even promising coins with professional backing may and will disappear in a while because the hype is "burned out" so I personally think it is worth giving it a try with internally raised funds and a slowly but steady progress.

I wouldn´t rule out BTC payments instead of QRK entirely (especially when it comes to a grand overhaul process of the currency) but I would give it definitely a lower priority and prefer to work with people who trust in the value of the community. We already have some of those on board and if we manage to keep the exchange with Max Guevara running we will be able to get those people more involved when it comes to core developent.
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:56:12 PM
 #15

This is a very interesting topic i will be reading it through a few times before commenting. However i am 100% with you that something needs to be done.

reRaise
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 11:27:02 PM
 #16

I don't have much to add, you guys probably know better than me, very interesting ideas here. Keep it up peeps
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
July 10, 2014, 12:45:10 AM
 #17

After reading through again I can say i like a lot of the ideas.
I will say though that a super block creation would solve all of this can we all give 5-10% please.  It is essentially like everyone giving 5-10% but not only that they will be getting an exact proportional reward to what they are giving. It is the fairest way. A time machine back to what should have been done at the start. However, if everyone is willing to give 5-10% of their qrk let's go for it. I'll go last of course just to make sure everyone else does too Smiley

I like the qrk foundation fees idea.

I like the ROI implementation ideas.

I love the board that will reward active and useful contributions.

I still think the pos companion coin with QRK only IPO has a lot of merit, and if the superblock idea is rejected then i would really like to see a real examination of the pros and cons for this. I see only pros.

I do not see the merged mining idea that has been proposed has many pros. Actually other than possibly helping to secure the chain is see no positives for qrk holders or the current qrk community right now. 



victzhang
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 193
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 10, 2014, 04:51:28 AM
 #18

I like everything you said. We need reforms  Cool
I will be glad to support the foundation and donate my quarks if your plans come true.
quarkfx (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 10, 2014, 08:07:30 AM
Last edit: July 10, 2014, 08:19:19 AM by quarkfx
 #19

@cryptohunter

After reading through again I can say i like a lot of the ideas.
I will say though that a super block creation would solve all of this can we all give 5-10% please.  It is essentially like everyone giving 5-10% but not only that they will be getting an exact proportional reward to what they are giving. It is the fairest way. A time machine back to what should have been done at the start. However, if everyone is willing to give 5-10% of their qrk let's go for it. I'll go last of course just to make sure everyone else does too Smiley

Re: superblock: You are right, the distribution would effectively be the same, or even: more fair. I also agree on the point that the option to change of the code shouldn´t be exclude and is most likely inevitable. However, I believe that changing the distribution is different to changing the code as it
a) directly manipulates the price
b) could be concepted as "marketcap bumping"
c) creates insecurity in the community with regard to price stability (the money that we redistribute could well be worth only 75% of what we assumed to collect because people sell off)
d) it would be a can opener (if people do it once, what keeps them from doing it twice)

All in all I see your point, but I think we should rather raise the money from donations and I also believe that we CAN raise it from donations if we make the community aware of the neccesity and potential of this step.

We certainly need to find a solution how to handle this huge amount of money trustless. I thought that probably smart-contracts could help here. What do you think? Maybe multisignatures?


Quote
I like the qrk foundation fees idea.

I like the ROI implementation ideas.

I love the board that will reward active and useful contributions.

Good to hear Smiley


Quote
I still think the pos companion coin with QRK only IPO has a lot of merit, and if the superblock idea is rejected then i would really like to see a real examination of the pros and cons for this. I see only pros. I do not see the merged mining idea that has been proposed has many pros. Actually other than possibly helping to secure the chain is see no positives for qrk holders or the current qrk community right now.  

To me that would make sense if a group of us would like to "leave Quark" because that would be effectively what would happen. Your argument that this coin wouldn´t be more competition than other coins is partwise valid to me, but it certainly makes a difference if competition comes from "within" the community than if it comes from outside. As I wrote: I am not convinced of the companion coin idea as long as their are no real distinguishing features and the more I think about it, I don´t see how to find distinguishing features at all. If we create a companion coin there will always be the elephant in the room "What for?" and if the only answer to this question is: "to fix hashrate" then this won´t contribute either to value nor to greater community participation.

So all in all I stay critical towards the merge mining idea, while I still believe that the hashrate needs to be fixed. However, if we start this great initiative there may well be the chance that we manage to mobilize more Quarkers to leave the Wallet open an mine with 2 cores to support the network. It is sort of a chicken egg situation and I would currently rather opt for fixing community (and by that: price) stability first and then take care of more initiatives to push hashrate. We have good things going on (for instance a pool where 1% of your income is invested in a lottery that allows for big gains), we certainly need to mobilize people from the community to get things going, but first and foremost we need to gain trust.

@victzhang

Glad to hear that. As I wrote, we should discuss solutions how to handle massive amounts of money without having one person who can theoretically dump it all as this would undermine trust.
reRaise
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 10, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
Last edit: July 10, 2014, 11:37:13 AM by reRaise
 #20

@cryptohunter

After reading through again I can say i like a lot of the ideas.
I will say though that a super block creation would solve all of this can we all give 5-10% please.  It is essentially like everyone giving 5-10% but not only that they will be getting an exact proportional reward to what they are giving. It is the fairest way. A time machine back to what should have been done at the start. However, if everyone is willing to give 5-10% of their qrk let's go for it. I'll go last of course just to make sure everyone else does too Smiley

Re: superblock: You are right, the distribution would effectively be the same, or even: more fair. I also agree on the point that the option to change of the code shouldn´t be exclude and is most likely inevitable. However, I believe that changing the distribution is different to changing the code as it
a) directly manipulates the price
b) could be concepted as "marketcap bumping"
c) creates insecurity in the community with regard to price stability (the money that we redistribute could well be worth only 75% of what we assumed to collect because people sell off)
d) it would be a can opener (if people do it once, what keeps them from doing it twice)

All in all I see your point, but I think we should rather raise the money from donations and I also believe that we CAN raise it from donations if we make the community aware of the neccesity and potential of this step.

We certainly need to find a solution how to handle this huge amount of money trustless. I thought that probably smart-contracts could help here. What do you think? Maybe multisignatures?


Quote
I like the qrk foundation fees idea.

I like the ROI implementation ideas.

I love the board that will reward active and useful contributions.

Good to hear Smiley


Quote
I still think the pos companion coin with QRK only IPO has a lot of merit, and if the superblock idea is rejected then i would really like to see a real examination of the pros and cons for this. I see only pros. I do not see the merged mining idea that has been proposed has many pros. Actually other than possibly helping to secure the chain is see no positives for qrk holders or the current qrk community right now.  

To me that would make sense if a group of us would like to "leave Quark" because that would be effectively what would happen. Your argument that this coin wouldn´t be more competition than other coins is partwise valid to me, but it certainly makes a difference if competition comes from "within" the community than if it comes from outside. As I wrote: I am not convinced of the companion coin idea as long as their are no real distinguishing features and the more I think about it, I don´t see how to find distinguishing features at all. If we create a companion coin there will always be the elephant in the room "What for?" and if the only answer to this question is: "to fix hashrate" then this won´t contribute either to value nor to greater community participation.

So all in all I stay critical towards the merge mining idea, while I still believe that the hashrate needs to be fixed. However, if we start this great initiative there may well be the chance that we manage to mobilize more Quarkers to leave the Wallet open an mine with 2 cores to support the network. It is sort of a chicken egg situation and I would currently rather opt for fixing community (and by that: price) stability first and then take care of more initiatives to push hashrate. We have good things going on (for instance a pool where 1% of your income is invested in a lottery that allows for big gains), we certainly need to mobilize people from the community to get things going, but first and foremost we need to gain trust.

@victzhang

Glad to hear that. As I wrote, we should discuss solutions how to handle massive amounts of money without having one person who can theoretically dump it all as this would undermine trust.


This won't happen, it was asked when mining was implemented in the wallet. It's not the way to solve the problem, maybe in the beginning but people will drop off, not a solid plan. Same goes for asking for donations, not sure how you want get millions of quarks through that. Even lets say you manage to get 500k, but thats just $6k.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!