Topic: [ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade - page 119. (Read 1031025 times)

Ok I understand, its really doing alot of harm to Quark from that perspective, but if people don't want to get involved in Quark because of Kolin, then they shouldn't get involved in any other coin which has users with this nefarious status. Those people will never understand how a decentralized system works and all that Kolin is doing is just talking talking he has no power over Quark. I mean why should people blame Bitcoin for Karpeles scandal ?? Karpeles has done ALOT MORE shit and negative press for Bitcoin than Kolin has, so why would people LEAVE BITCOIN ?? just because Karpeles is using Bitcoin and proposing stupid ideas on twitter..

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

Kolin made quark look bad 6 months ago where he as the face of quark did an awful job to stay professional. Some valuable members who wanted to build the coin left because of him engaging a lot in flaming, trolling and wanting to have the last word on how quark should move on like we have seen also recently with his mimic coin and the other Thread where he started to accuse other coins of being a scam. If you noticed all these guys who left have critics about him and even some core members and i believe some people don't want to get involved with quark just because of kolin. Also on Reddit he is constantly spamming unrelated quark topics which i have to remove to keep things organised.

If I ever use Reddit I'd be sure to join, LOL

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

Btw. I don't see why people should blame Kolin for the current state (especially those who are not even part of the community anymore). As I expressed on Reddit I have serious problems with the recent proceedings but Quark has problems apart from individual behaviour.

+1

KOLIN..... if you really love quark.... so LEAVE it!!!

I used to be one of the top members of the foundation. Canon. I left pretty calmly. I had so many powers I could've used to just make havoc, but didn't. One of the head guys in QuarkUniverse right now is one of my best friends in the entire world.

I don't think I've ever mentioned any other coins, or told anyone to support any other specific coins other than telling a few people in #quarkuniverse to invest in coins in which they have PROFITED ON A LOT RIGHT NOW (Cloak).

Yes I came back and created criticism and discussion (but without any power), but there's one thing you need to do:

Kolin is a shit-for-brains plain and simple. He told us long ago that Quark is his game, and we were all just playing it.

Don't let this guy have any more of the cake. Remove him.

Well there is an allegation that he started mimiccoin and then pretended to find it, and if he did start mimiccoin then that sheds bad light on the team, that's social engineering manipulation.

I'm new and don't know anything about the previous suggested coin that mimiccoin is a perfect replica of, nor why they decided against it.

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't commented on the topic.

I don't know what Kolin has done so bad to Quark other than coming up with some bad ideas like PoS, but he certainly doesn't have more manipulation powers than Thule or Kitaco which are clearly supporters of other coins that tried and apparently achieved to discriminate and create tension among quarkers.

XCP is linked with Bitcoin, they haven't "started from scratch", thats why they didn't needed for Bitcoin to hardfork to accommodate their BTC burn into XCP, hence if you want to use their version of PoB you'd basically have to rely on Quark network to verify the owner of the QRK burned funds.

However if you want to create an independent coin("start from scratch") like I understood from this:


then you would need to hardfork Quark in order to legitimately burn it so you can get XCOIN. It depends on what you to do but yes its easier to just fork XCP.

Either way, you'd have to promote and sell this new coin to give it value in the market so the question is on what ? what would this new coin offer in return ? what are the features ? (XPC `sold` their idea with p2p market tools, exchanges, other useful financial concepts), So why wouldn't we do this promotion for Quark which already has important features as a currency instead of building a new coin which would give some investment funds however you couldn't use them in real life as the coin on which the investment funds are based on will not be worth anything in the market.

Sorry will take a look in the last few pages, must have miss them..

Kolin has lost all credibility. He has deceived and manipulated this community long enough.

QuarkieFM here,

Kitaco I agree. Kolin needs to immediately LEAVE! Once again he came back and made a mess out of everything and I think some of the core members would agree with that. Everything was going smoothly until this fuckbag (excuse my language) came back into the scene and kept telling us "Quark is moving beautifully". Come the fuck on!

Coinmamas post with the email should be enough for all to see what a deceiving prick this KOLCOIN really is.

Kitaco +1

Why would I be nervous? I was in the hospital for 5 weeks. None of you have made a cent on Quark and is just keeps doing worse and worse with a community that's LEAVING, while I'm pulling in cash money on other altcoins that aren't first gen garbage, and aren't run by COUGH people who can't type out a sentence more proficiently than a 8 year old.

Talking about my IQ. Oh the irony. My sides are in stitches from laughter.

Kolin, I got rid of you from this community once, and I hope someone gets rid of your insanity again - so people like coinmama, cashmen, and k1ngs can move on from the severe damage you have done to Quark.

You hear that Quark Community? Get RID of your PARASITE.

http://www.getpimp.org/community/blog/144-what-are-all-these-x11,-x13,-x15-algorithms-made-of.html

Read that. Every single one of those destroys Quark.

Which prominent Proof of Burn concept uses hard forks? None.



I already outlined the possible innovations, won't repeat it the 10th time.

@maok


Aha...it needs hardfork... intetesting. No it doesn't.  Read about it. Coins are burned by sending them to a "dead" address. A hard fork is not needed or did counterparty need a Bitcoin hardfork? The coins ate still in the blockchain bur they are lost. The protocol only confirms your "work". You obviously completely misunderstood proof of burn or simply don't know about it.



Who wrote about Quark shozld be the slave of another coin? That proposal wouldn't make any sense to me.


Monero has a dedicated and responsive dev with talent and good ideas. It is all about the community but a) the developers are imüortant figures and b) the community doed not exist for nothing - a community needs to be built. With secrecy and closed discourse this is not going to work. I explained on Reddit why I have problems with mimiccoin, I wont repeat it here. You don't have to agree with me but you will certainly understand that I won't spend more time into Quark if I see that the team structures we tried to create to move things forward are made effectively irrelevant. Also I can't see a clear correspondence between dev and community but rather between devs and single individuals. This has no future in my opinion.

@Alice

That is nonsense. When the distribution is burnt from another coin the market conditions don't change.  Please, do be a favor and read:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn

Technically a proof of burn coin can be considered as being created on the top of the other coin, so by saying there is no free market you say Quark has no free market.

If you take Counterparty's version of proof of burn then it wouldn't require an Quark hardfork, however the new coin would have to rely on Quark blockchain for safely storing the proof of ownership. Then you would have to come up with a whole new marketing plan in order to give value to that newly created coin, therefore instead of doing that I suggest we focus on Quark promotion.

Sure, if you have a great idea of a coin that could be used with Quark, like merge mining or XCP's version of PoB you can create it as it would only help Quark in strengthening its market position(like NMC and XCP for Bitcoin), however if your new coin doesn't bring anything new to the scene of altcoins then you'd better of promoting Quark which already has some desirable features and was the first to implement them, has a fair distribution and a undervalued price, its perfectly build for merchants and fast applications like games.

A new coin with an initial exchange of coins that is not based on free market.

That's just the way I say it.

Hi,
in regards to proof of burn, I hope you and Peter are well aware that it won't have nothing in common with Quark(all the principles that attracted quarkers: cPOW, speed, fees,etc. ). Also I hope you are both aware that in order to implement it we would require a hardfork of Quark so that the old qrks could be BURNED and your new coin to receive the burned old coins. If that happens and you successfully convince everyone of us to move on that coin, as I've explained it would have nothing in common with Quark(i for one won't upgrade my quark software/protocol for such a change).

I think most of the times people like to give complex technical solutions(like Kolin tried with proof of stake) without fully understanding what is required to achieve it and/or understanding the implications. Instead of concentrating your attention on making protocol changes maybe we should rely on quark promotion, services, acceptance, etc.

Merge mining idea initially posted ~40 pages ago, suggested we should use Quark as a slave to another coin, which again would've required an hardfork for our protocol so that when mining Quark we also mine X coin. I am totally against this, however if someone wants to create X coin or to modify existing coin(quarkbar ,etc) in order to make Quark the main coin, then everyone is free to do so: For example if you want to help Quark hashrate and have a great idea of a coin but you decide that you will offer the miners not only your coin units but also QRK reward then its no problem, those miners will have to solve both Quark and their coin puzzles, which in turn will help our hashrate. I don't suggest anyone should concentrate their attention on this(unless you're a dev with lots of spare time) but instead lets just focus on Quark promotion, share ideas about quark services, support other services that accept quark, basically everything that will help Quark get a wider acceptance from people and merchants. As I've said in my last post Bytecoin is slowly dying, yet its clone Monero is still maintaining its position, why ? because its not about the fucking code(that is what brought us together so there's no reason to change it but only to improve it(add mutlisig, solution for a big blockchain, etc!!!), its about the community..

First off, I am not launching anything. What I will do however is looking for a feasible way for Quarkers to translate their share to another project where the community can start from scratch and stick together. Why is Proof of burn better than an IPO? Because for an IPO you would need the coins to be already premined + you would need trust for those who distribute the shares.  With proof of burn trust isn't needed because pwople would simply do it on their own.
As I said before, the protocol could be created ao e.g. people burn 1 QRK and receive for that 0.5 of the new currency,  0.2 is reserved for a community fund and 0.3 is deposited and subsequently paid back over a certain period of time (e.g. 3 years). This way everyone would donate equally 20% to the community and 30% are paid back slowly so the interest in pumping&dumping is kept low mid term.


No, burning is trustless as explained above. Look up Counterparty. They use Bitcoin proof of burn. And no, there are no QRK for a community fund. Quarks are burned and disappear from circulation. Instead the community receices 20% of the whole burnt sum as community fund. This solution needs a solid foundation in forehand otherwise it is doomed to die.

As I said, I am not planning to launch a coin, but I can contribute to the discussion and if there are enough interested Quarkers we can prepare thia to happen. Good deva are the key as you said and probably funding to get them started. If you know devs who are looking for a motivated community to start to work with, you should post contacts.