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!
EDIT: adding this for the record also: http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/2br13q/a_few_days_ago_i_commented_on_a_quark_clone_and/cj9m97d