Topic: [ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade - page 128. (Read 1031025 times)

I am still holding quarks and will not sell them for any reason!
I even not mined them, but worked hard for them when one qrk was at its top.
Even if qrk dies on every exchange I will keep my hard earned coins.
Never give up, never surrender!
BR

I answered the question already in the proposal. Beside that it doesn't really mattter how many units you get but how much share you get (1:0.9).


Yep. (Isn't ptoof of burn exactly that?)


Anyway, In my opinion we are currently spending too much time in discussing a solution that should be a last resort and not our first interest. I won't advocate this solution if there is ANY other solution that will raise hashrate and trust.

I gave up on Quark after Kolin's rant. I focus on the future now... what does it do in the future?

Let's try this instead of storytellings:


Does somebody want to invest in Quark just for buying possible new Coin Core - coin without any known characteristics?



Should I set poll with this question? 

So what is the conversion? Is it 1 to 1? I can't expect that the new coin's supply will be the same as Quark, which means I would get less of the new coin. Also, I think you will need to create huge level of trust for someone to send a large amount of Quark only then to have a party send the new coin. It needs to automatic or seamless. Not sure how, but see some security issues with that.

YC

my compiled wallet is only a small and easy step to improve something a bit. Nothing big improved. Just compiled with newest libraries (it required somewhat big work to me, new in compiling wallets )

I also tried personally to work in updating/correcting new early development stage wallet 0.9.2. It is very big job especially for me now. It requires very deep understandings how every wallet or gui works. My fast and nervous attempts of the changing code are not good for such work

Sure is that in comparison to you I will be the hell of a storyteller


Better than telling that everything is fine like you do, right?.


You know, people usually draw their conclusions from how they would act on their own

P.S. Also funny to hear that talk from a guy who is advertising GoldCoin with his account lulz


Soooo, let's see what you provided: exactly what I expected. Thanks for nothing. >> ignore

Do you really enjoy telling people cut your losses after the fall of 95%?

You should work for some famous institutions and its story tellers


Better crypto. lol

Better features. lol

Promising features sell. lol

...

Say simple, pump and dump.

That needs to be figured out by someone who has a better technical understanding than me. I am all for using Quark Algo but it may be a problem due to POS+POW


@coinerer
 Keep repeating. Quark deserves muxh better? I am all on your side. No provide this solution,

Why would they do it? Because a) they don't lose anything and b) they get something for it: everyone knows that people can only spend a small part of their property and that if they dump the other part is essentially lost. AND everyone knows that everyone knows - sounds odd but this condition actually causes trust. People would all sit innthe same boat and know that they need (and will) rely on each other. This effect gets smaller the more time passes. Thia gives Core time to build a solid infrastructure and decreases pumping & dumping.


May be lost,  maybe not. Would depend on how Quark develops. If there us no Quark at that tme but the whole community migrated to Core I dont see why the project couldn't be switched too. But yeah, highly hypothetical.  On the other hand: When ShaqFu arrives and Quark is highly instable this could be pretty awkward...



I dont think that the price is important at all. What mattets is prospect. A coin with dedicated developers andcommunity will raise people's interest and give prospect to the project.  If there is no prospect then value will eventually reach 0. I don't think Quark has no prospect, but if it turns out that development will stagnate then it is rather mobing towards 0.

Of course, if you call for radical approaches like this one you expect a rise of value, but in the end the market decides, not us.

@Yellow

Yeah, have the same concerns with regard to the companion coin. I would expect the community to  "fork" eventually. Proof of burn allows people to chose freely and it ensures that EVERYONE donates to the community.

@coinerer

Keep repeating...Quark deserves better? I am 100% with you. Now provide these solution en detalle and I will be happy to follow.

P.S. Your compiled wallets don't help with the hashrate issue.

Is not much simpler that Shaq Fu create his own clone? 

Talking about new coin (Core) without any characteristics of that coin is nonsense.

If market needs nonsenses that is ok.

Instead of thinking about what Doge did in its first month (exchange, Doge markets everywhere), instead of thinking about creating exchange where quark might be exchanged to hundreds of coins you discuss about exchanging Quarks to new Coins with unknown characteristics. Is that something better than nonsense?

If I was reading such and other nonsenses (listed in my prev posts) before half year, I would not have Quarks today. I will wait at 20 sat what is right price for such ideas.

QuarkCoin which established one of the main directions among virtual coins deserves much better, not big set of nonsenses.

I wouldn't know why the community wouldn't want to move to a better Crypto with more dev activity and promising features. I would, as a Quark holder.

What we would get from this move is: security problem will be solved, development funds, more dev activity and techs added. Although we really should try to keep ShaqFu, it's something that really separates a Crypto from others, it's something no other Crypto can have. With new techs other cryptos can add it as well but something like ShaqFu is special, so we need to make sure if ShaqFu devs can go with Core instead of quark, if we explain it i don't see a reason why they shouldn't.

Overal i like this, but need to see what the rest thinks about this as well.

This is a good point and i agree with this. It will divide the community and will make quark fade away, i would rather go with Core. I wouldn't know why ShaqFu devs wouldn't agree if we tell them that quark moved to core. ShaFu is one of the biggest Crypto achievements and we need to keep it.

It depends upon how many Quarkholders decide to move to the new coin.

Basically, proof-of-burn is the process of creating coins by destroying old ones. You make a quark wallet that only has a public address (no private key) and people can trade their quarkcoins for the new coins by sending quarks to that address. The foundation would monitor the address via the block explorer during the distribution period and when it was over they would send the new coins to people who took advantage of the process.

Since there is no private key, no one can ever spend those coins again. Essentially, they are destroyed.

So basically, If I send 50k QRK to the wallet address I will lose those quarks forever but will be rewarded with the equivalent of 50k QRK in the new currency. This is how Counterparty created their currency (they burned Bitcoin).

There are several scenarios about how this could affect people who decide not to move to Core, however.

1. The majority of Quark-holders move.

In this scenario, most of the Quark community transitions to Core. This will effectively kill Quark...the community will be so small that investors will lose confidence and sell out....unless somehow the remaining community stands firm and attracts new members. If that happened, then the price of QRK would probably go up quite a bit. So many Quarkcoins had been destroyed that those that remained would be worth a lot more.

2. A small portion of Quark-holders move

Say Quarkfx decides to launch core but only 5% of the community wants to go with him. This will probably leave Quark basically intact (as long as they still have a dev., foundation, etc.)...so Core should not affect Quark to much...the only effect would probably be a tiny bump in value to account for the coins that had been destroyed.

Yellow,
 So what happens to existing Quark holders with their coins in a Proof of Burn process? Do they lose that investment?

YC

My thoughts on a couple of your questions

1. This is a very good question...however, Shaq Fu in itself is not reason enough to leave Quark as is.

2. I think if we use proof-of-burn to create Core then theoretically we should be able to enter at roughly the market cap of however many coins were destroyed in Core's creation.

I think if we want to have any hope of maintaining Quark's value during the switch we need to use proof-of-burn (granted, Quark's value is super-low right now but we are still around #20 in marketcap among the hundreds and hundreds of coins out there). I worry that if we make a companion coin without killing quark (or at least some quarkcoins) then all we will do is divide the quark community in half. Some will stick with quark and others will move to the companion coin...especially if it experiences a pump after its launch.

To ensure that the new coin has value we need to destroy something that currently does have value--i.e. quarkcoins.


Just my 2 quarks.

Agreed with the bold part and just saw your link, very concrete information and ideas you have there, especially these possible features:

Decentralized Marketplace / Auction
Distributed Storage
Multi-signatures
Two-phase Payments
Voting System
Reputation System
Decentralized Mixing Service
Smart Contracts

I'm starting to like this approach. Although what i'm wondering is 4 things regarding core.

- What algorithm will core go for?

- I'm not sure if holders would want to store 40% of their assets away and get them monthly back in a period of 36 months. What if someone would want to have all of it back because of personal circumstances?

- What will happen to ShaqFu and quark and the game you are working on?

- The price is also important, what are the estimations of cores price when everyone converts and things start to run? Obviously the aim should be higher than the current quark prices.

Quarkfx,
 I don't think anyone is suggesting just pull the trigger without any real substantial thought of the pros and cons. I am not a miner, so I can't speak intelligently on that. What I am suggesting is something needs to change. Speaking to Max is fine, but we need to find a way to get him more involved than he is. Either that or lets band together and get other developers involved and create an incentive, which I believe has been discussed.

Will Max participate in this thread? Can someone get him here? Let's reduce the attempts of communication and speak directly with the community.

Anyways, I do appreciate the hard work of the folks that have invested time and money. No doubt about that.

YC

Please, go ahead. Really, I know that if we don´t take action that it is just talk, but unfortunately talk and concept precedes action (at least for me). In this thread and in another I posted some rather detailed sketches of what we could do. I haven´t seen others developing comparable proposals and yes, I would like to hear more but I am not willing to "just do it".

I can tell you what I think we should do first:
1. having different elaborated options
2. talking to Max Guevara and ask him what he thinks about it

I personally won´t stay with Quark if the prospect of Quark is "business as usual" but I think before talking the situation worse than it probably is, talking to the dev is obligatory to me. Anyway, by that time, we should have set up several scenarios on our backhand. I hosted a doc at

http://bit.ly/quarkscenarios

I will fill in my proposal later. Please provide yours.