Topic: [ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade - page 129. (Read 1031025 times)

Well, I bought Quarks for about 300 EUR I believe 90% of all Quark investors didn´t buy more (just my personal estimation). There are of course several holders who hold a lot more than that and where serious money is at stake, so yes, you are right, I was referring to what I believe is the majority and those of you who have more Quark than the avarage Quarker should be even more interested in a solution that gives more value to the currency. But then again, this is only my personal opinion. I don´t believe that Quark will die but I think we should act anyway to reach out to the current competitors in the top 10 market cap. I believe we can get there again, but I don´t believe we will get there for nothing.


What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

Well, I bought Quarks for about 300 EUR I believe 90% of all Quark investors didn´t buy more (just my personal estimation). There are of course several holders who hold a lot more than that and where serious money is at stake, so yes, you are right, I was referring to what I believe is the majority and those of you who have more Quark than the avarage Quarker should be even more interested in a solution that gives more value to the currency. But then again, this is only my personal opinion. I don´t believe that Quark will die but I think we should act anyway to reach out to the current competitors in the top 10 market cap. I believe we can get there again, but I don´t believe we will get there for nothing.


What I referred to was a sort of last choice in case we won´t be able to find another reliable perspective. Proof-of-burn would be one way to raise money for community and development, design things from scratch and catch some attention in the crypto scene but I won´t play down the fact that it would imply a lot of hard work and risk.

Not sure who you believe doesn't have a real problem if Quark fails. I know folks that have made significant investments in Quark not to have it just fall in price and die.

Are you suggesting that this new coin will cause an equal conversion for Quark holders?

I mean the proposal I made on page 326:

Which proposal do you mean so i can check it out.

If there is indeed a large pot, then i like the pow/pos idea, we could time the announcement together with some nice quark updates, like the new wallet, i heard about a game being made: maybe you can publicize that along with the announcement etc.

1. We look for a capable team of developers who are looking out for a capable and dedicated community (usually not the case, but as I lined out, the community is one key factor to success and we can provide that)
2. The developer create a Quark based coin (working title: core) that adopts features that are seriously promising (and not only to hype the coin, I am especially thinking of features that allow voting with your coins!) with ~ the amount of coins as Quark + a yearly inflation of say 1% (currently we have no stable inflation, that is seriously confusing)
3. We create an Quark proof-of-burn protocol where every 1 destroyed Quark = 1 Core.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community share" (I talked about this earlier). This money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts) and will be distributed in a timeframe that we expect is needed to install a solid infrastructure. This is also the money which we can use to pay the developers on a regular basis (NOT at once).
(optionally 5. Another 40% is stored via smart contract and paid out to shareholders for the next 36 months. This could be a mechanism to reduce prisoners dilemma: People know that there are large shareholders and they might be scared (for good reason?) that those are just waiting for the right time to drop all of their holdings. By "leasing" it back to holders you "store" self-interest and by doing that support trust in the community. (I am not talking about shady concepts like e.g. ECC used [the longer you keep the more you get]. you will get back what you paid in, there is no additional inflation)

Following my proposal there would be a (relatively large) pot for core and community development.

With going pow/pos there won't be a significant development pot though where new developments can be created (...)

I think POS+POW would be better, but that´s not the point. As Yellowblackbird noted this wouldn´t be an IPO, it would be rather Proof of Burn. It would mean that we move from one coin to another. That´s why I said we should go for this as last choice but it is always good to know that there is a last choice that allows maintaining the community work we achieved, even if Quark keeps dropping in price.

Yes i just read plan D, seems interesting. This means the coin is going to be PoS since it's not minable right, which means it would have to compete with NXT etc since they both IPO and PoS. Although IPO is not the most liked way of releasing coins, how can we compensate this with Core so it makes it compelling to people? Also what does this mean for quark, does it effect quark negatively or positively? People basically exchange their quark for core right, you guys get quark which serves as a development pot and they get core. This means that there are now 2 coins under core members hand which needs to be cared of. Although how does this solve the quark security?

On a side note it would be pretty cool if ShaqFu could be implemented in the wallet : p

That would be a good idea and I discussed it with Julie some time ago but
a) the game still needs to be financed
b) the game is Android based
We discussed implementing a mobile miner and HashEngineer even said, that it could work without totally draining the battery, but the effect would only be relevant if - say - 1 Mio. people play it and I don´t expect this to happen short-mid term, even if we manage to market it good.

To be honest, solution D seems pretty appealing to me because it would allow the community to finally take over. Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. To most of us it is no real problem if Quark fails but losing the community we builded up would be a real loss.

@ quarkfx

So it seems that it will be hard for everyone to keep their wallets open as the fundamental solution to secure the network, remember that people can drop off for whatever reason since there isn't really an incentive for them, remember most of them want something back for it. Now how about giving them the incentive through implementing the game you been working on in the wallet where they can earn quark?

Maybe, but from my experience you do worst when you act quick because you start to get nervous. So lets go through the arguments and our view will be clearer afterwards (i hope

So the Quark only IPO. As I said elsewhere, i can´t see how the companion coin wouldn´t massively undermine Quark, because people would always ask why the heck they should keep Quark if they can have a "better" coin (and still the same community). I only see one way where the IPO is a good solution, that is when a Part of the community wants to move away from the developer. I can´t see this as a "companion" solution. However, if the development perspective appears to be negative , then it may be a good solution to move Quark investors to a somewhat more promising solution.

Take this scenario:

1. We look for a capable team of developers who are looking out for a capable and dedicated community (usually not the case, but as I lined out, the community is one key factor to success and we can provide that)
2. The developer create a Quark based coin (working title: core) that adopts features that are seriously promising (and not only to hype the coin, I am especially thinking of features that allow voting with your coins!) with ~ the amount of coins as Quark + a yearly inflation of say 1% (currently we have no stable inflation, that is seriously confusing)
3. We create an Quark only IPO and sell 1 Core = 1 Quark.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community premine" (I talked about this earlier). Unlike "normal" premine this money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts). This is also the money which we can use to pay the developers on a regular basis (NOT at once).
(optionally 5. Another 40% is stored via smart contract and paid out to shareholders for the next 36 months. This could be a mechanism to reduce prisoners dilemma: People know that there are large shareholders and they might be scared (for good reason?) that those are just waiting for the right time to drop all of their holdings. By "leasing" it back to holders you "store" self-interest and by doing that support trust in the community. (I am not talking about shady concepts like e.g. ECC used [the longer you keep the more you get]. you will get back what you paid in, there is no additional inflation)

I really like this as an alternative in case that there is no development perspective AT ALL. So in my opinion we should seek a critical debate with the developer to level out what is possible and what not with him. If it turns out to be a waste of time then I think this could be our Plan D


Everything I wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683618.new#new
can be applied

Did you know there is quark casino @ http://quarkuniverse-casino.l8.io/?r=quark-casino

Would Max be willing to, or is it even possible to hard fork and add a percent PoS? This could be incentive enough for people to leave their clients open.

Additionally, our C++ coder/Quark community member: Someguy1234.. will be assisting Max with updates!

From Max Guevera.:

"Status on 0.9.2 code-base upgrade:

I've setup a github repository on:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/

based on the latest Bitcoin 0.9.2 branch.

The following changes have been committed:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark092/commits/master

* Makefiles updated
* Chain parameters
* Checkpoints
* Configuration files
* SHA2 POW hashing replaced with Quark hashing
* Some translations from "Bitcoin" to "Quark"
* Graphics
* Payment server

The following changes were applied to Quark:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commits/master

All these commits needs to be included in the 0.9.2 branch of Quark.

In particular we still need to add dynamic checkpoints, from this commit:

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commit/79c3190f111cd97cfa653c382417499c1614948c

Other changes still to do:

* Places where UI text still says "Bitcoin"
* Chinese translations for "Quark"
* Other core differences between Quark and Bitcoin, particular those made by Sifcoin
* Lots of testing!

Someguy(NameEdited), feel free to create pull requests for any additional changes or e-mail me queries you may have.

Cheers"