Topic: [ANN] [QRK] Quark | Core 0.10 upgrade - page 134. (Read 1031025 times)

I definitely vote for Vic, he has proven himself to be a dedicated and respectful person. He had a major role in ShaqFu and knows how to steer things, after him i would say quarkfx, a talented, ambitious and also respectful guy.

1. Only 2 persons you qualify as being dedicated managers for Quark ? Its ok but can you ask them come forward and create a poll where we can vote based on their plan and maybe we can vote for both of them or others who come forward ?
2. Does anyone know who those investors are ? How to establish communication channel with them ?
7. You mean something like bitstamp for bitcoin, only qrk usd/eur ? QEX are not serious at all, they have alot of problems and even now I'm waiting for an quark withdrawal for more than 10 hours, website down last days, we need something trouble-free I agree.


The way I see it you want to create a new coin on top of those 400 and you think that will create interest & activity from old & new quarkers, but if its just another coin I don't see anything of substance there. However if the devs can create a sidechain technology then those companion coin would become a sidechain coin which will be linked directly with quark and will also help the network security. Think of it this way: on top of sidechain technology anyone can come and create their coin which they can mine helping the Quark network with their hashrate but without the ability of attacking the network, thus a sidechain coin called QuarkASIC could be created and asic miners can mine on that sidechain and 100 QAsic will translate to 1 Quark. I know the technicalities of creating such feature are very time consuming and hard to implement but then all the activity&interest will be based on something with substance which will attract new investors not on some other coin on top of those 400 which will offer no guarantees to those potential investors...

Just shortly because I lack time (traveling this weekend, weehee)

@cryptohunter

I didn´t think of IPO or sold for Quark only. Imho that´s not necessary. If the coin is premined it shouldn´t be given out just like that but dedicated to specific activities. This is the only valid and acceptable way to do premine. It would finally be a reward not only for keeping the network up but also for keeping the community developing. Both are important and I don´t see that even one coin did this kind of "premine".

With regard to the superblocks, please comment on the idea I am going to write down below.

@orm

Ah, damn, yeah, forgot it is you
@1 I mentioned Bittrex because it will be easy to get there and many traders use it. No matter where the coin is: people will dump. I see that happen on every exchange. We should be agnostic here. Would people invest? I don´t see why they won´t if both are distinguishable and if it is not necessary forver.

Also, we could integrate the superblock idea with the companion coin: The coin could run for 3 years and then the "experimental coins" are integrated in the Quark blockchain as superblock (or differently: people who hold the experimental coin will receive shares of the superblock. Idk...maybe just a thought. Need to think about it again.

@2 The perspective is a growing community and a stable hashrate imho. This is more valuable than anything else.

@3 Not sure if that would be too complicated?

@Distribution

Basically my idea was that it is distributed via mining but that you can ALSO receive coin for being an active member of the community. I believe the problem with premine is, that there is huge part of the whole amount that can be dumped at any time. If we distributed the community premine like a faucet we would have one motor to keep community activities up.  10% was only a number. It could be anything. It could 2 or even 50%.

Just want to state here incase i haven't.


For me "pre mining" or any other "quasi scams" or anything that moves into the "trust us" system is out for my vote.


Alternative Crypto has descended a long way and the bar is very low this however doesn't mean we lower with it.

1. If it is at Bittrex, will miners not use it to just dump quickly for example btc? Shouldn't we use some more "Quark friendly" exchanges like QEX? The more exchanges the merged mining coin is present, the more places you have for miners "to dump" the coins.
It will only get value if alt coin traders will invest in the coin. Why would an alt coin trader invest in a merged mining coin?
I have had millions of pennies and had once millions of moon, which I could flush through the toilet, though it was present at many exchanges.

2. Well I am interested in the perspective, has anybody an idea for a good perspective?

3. Hm, I agree to a certain degree. Merchants who wants to accept cryptocurrencies has the most trust in btc, and do not accept other cryptocurrencies.  Just thinking loud...Quark doesn't have a transaction fee. Is there a possibility that Quark use the merged mining coin for transaction fees? Just an example: something cost 1000 QRK. Then you have to pay eg 10% merged mining coins (=10 merged mine coins). Then you force to a certain degree that Quark holders also hold the merged mining coins to perform payments.

4. :-)

One more question, how will the merged mine coin be distributed? In your proposal it is mostly distributed within the Quark community. Is the community large enough for this distribution or has it to go bigger than that.

By the way.. silvermetal (= aka as Orm).

Thanks  Yes, it's great to see some new ideas getting discussed here now. I think together we can come up with something to turn this around. Yes with organic growth perhaps we should only be at the price we are now. However there is NO reason not to improve our situation. The end game i think is ROI projects which we all get involved in, discuss and get rewarded from. That should be the final goal.

Getting to that will require quite a bit of work. We need to bring back to the community investors that have just bought and forgotten they owned qrk. They think it is like stocks in a company where you buy them and other people will work hard to make you rich because they are getting paid a salary by the company you own stocks in. This is NOT the case with crypto like QRK. Yes, it may be the case with coins like drk or others where the devs are very hands on and motivated by the large stash of coins the instamine or premine provided them. I mean reaching MAX or hearing from him is like contacting TOAA in the marvel universe there are rumours that people speak with him and discuss things but really that could be myth and legend. There is actually NO single person leading QRK right now that has any contact with the community. Hence a ship with no captain.

So anyway, i see we need to solve these issues.


1. Elect a true community manager/s that have time/energy to unite the qrk community. VIC. DI ....some not scared to give things a try.
2. Bring back the investors holding qrk to discuss the future projects/services.
3. Solve the chain security issue.
4. Get some projects/services going. (funded by ROI or other ways)
5. Stop missing out on the hype trains that bring in new BTC and community members.
6. Start reaching out once more beyond the crypto communities
7. QRk exchange for fiat only.  No other crypto. No point reaching out and finding people that have not heard of crypto only to introduce them to 400 other coins.



Let's look at all options and see which one solves most of these whilst having the least negatives.


I say the superblock is still the best way i see it as a time machine only. All coins with active development have a development fund. This is like a premine of 10% but released only gradually in return for work completed. However i hear people saying it has will be seen as negative so let's skip the superblock idea even though i am yet to hear specific negatives. I am certain if announced with the work or projects ahead of time that it will go to fund. The price of quark will rise far more than 10% and way more than 1000% as the projects get completed.

Anyway since it just seems people are against it out of principle let's forget that for now although it would solve all issues except the chain security, even though over time if the projects cause a steep rise in price it could solve the chain security issue too.


Okay, the companion coin. Let's discuss the best way to bring this in. Premined and ipo sold only for qrk only. Sidechain claimable only over time by active qrk holders, combination of the two?, if it was not premined then some premine some merge mined? although i see not how merge mining benefits current qrk holders only other than to add security to the chain. However may be i am wrong and there are other benefits i'm not seeing. Hence let's discuss it. Would be great for someone to list down the pro/cons of each method.

The companion coin i see has zero negatives at all. All services, features etc that were ever developed for it could be applied to qrk and qrk be accepted as payment also on all services catering to the companion coin. I don't see that as competition... the companion coin could provide  - funding for features to be developed, services to be developed, create a dev pot, bring back disinterested qrk holders, bring in people that love hype and features with their btc and input, lead to much more interest in ROI projects, more activity = more back links more buzz. I see 0 negs if implemented correctly.

Max if he does not wish, needs to have nothing to do with the companion coin. We can bring in a totally new development/services/project management team. The premined companion coins and ipo qrk payments can be held by foundation in transparent wallets and used to pay off developers as they complete work.

First we need a leader. I say VIC or DI. If neither of those want to step up or think they are stepping on MAX's toes. Then MAX needs to just give them the Okay or get back here and take charge. Every ship needs a captain really, even though this should be a full community effort and if run correctly would certainly be one.

Let's just get on with something though. I mean let's thrash out the manner we implement the companion coin and go for it. There is nothing to lose, 400 coins and rising, 10 new shitcoins daily most are scams.

1+2. What are the solutions? Please let me know if you have spoken with Max
3. What is than the mission/vision of the merged mining coin? Or is it only some kind of reward for the miners, which they can exchange for other coins (most preferable Quark of course ;-) )
4. I guess Max has the skills to do that :-)

@stompix

When I was talking about a certain percentage on a pool I was talking about mining of the companion coin. Also I don´t know why people believe that there won´t be any donations to developers. I am 100% sure that there will be but until very recently there were a lot of doubts if we would be able to get in touch with Max Guevara and thanks to the dedicated work of people like Victor we did it and he even agreed to cooperate with others (which was in doubt before as well). So, I believe if there are donations needed (the developers never asked for donations) we will be able to raise them.

@maok

Multisig is a good idea. Basically what you propose sounds like a kind of Kickstarter for Quark. I know there are actors like Headfunder who may be usable for us in the future if its about collecting money and paying it back if the target isnt reached.

Yes but that plan is very complicated. I think we just need some trusty quarkers from the community to create a Bitcoin multi sig address with 2/3 signatures and if people want to see Quark make a leap forward they'll donate and when a minimum amount will be raised that needs to be talked with the dev team they'll release it and funding continues. If that minimum amount is not raised through public funding of Quark related projects then those 2/3 trusted assigned community members will make the refunds back to those who donated. Much more simple plan and will show the support behind Quark.

The dev team could then work on implementing side chain technology and even create a side chain called QuarkDev on which miners will be able to support the dev team by different methods(% from block found goes to dev, or 1000 QuarkDev would be translated to 1 Quark using side chain technology, etc)

+1 to everything above!

• Merge mine with new coin(with longer term distribution/value, and some new features)---> some method (community pre-mine or some version thereof to be decided upon) creates transparent infrastructure bounty pot,  while mining increases hashrate for Quark--->Foundation votes democratically on projects for spending on Quark development.
  
  
• Devs get paid through some separate mining pool percentage arrangement...maybe some larger amount for initial payment, and then continued %age, for as long as they stay involved (I suggest needing to demonstrate some involvement)
  

People aren't donating 1 quark but do you expect them to mine (sorry what to mine) with an extra fee?
I hope you're not talking about quark mining here as there is no such thing.

This won't work trust me, people are not so keen on donating to devs and we are talking about a pretty decent amount. Quark hashing problem needs to be solved, you can't have a successful Crypto without the needed security and merge mining seems to help with that. Premine with reliable core members as explained by quarkfx is going to be this development pot where technology such as for example sidechains or other features can be implemented.

Like quarkfx said: "We set up a pool with a fee of 1% that will be dedicated to the developers. Those of us who want to fund the developer agree on a mining plan that will give back to the developer. This way we actually pay for their work and give them shares of the currency at the same time, which will foster self-interest. We can also agree what their "base" work is and then pay them share of the bounties where every bounty needs to be democratically blessed by the Foundation."

edited, i meant instead of your suggestion of 10% premine coin, instead lets bring some new technology into Quark like side chains

Sounds like ripping people, maybe I missed your point?

Implementing sidechains in Quark could be an alternative that would create interest, so it seems to be a plausible idea to discuss to me. But remember that raising funds is not so easy and developers need to be rewarded in some way.
 

how about instead of creating a premine coin that brings nothing new, we raise a substantial development pot and seek devs who can implement a new technology like side chains which was mentioned first time in relation to bitcoin and altcoins but if Quark would be the first to implement this it would bring a real advantage over other coins.

@reRaise


Yep, I think that, too. I mean, the main negative things about premine is:

a) most people do it to enrich themselves without promising anything and the full ability to dump it all - that is not acceptable. It is much different if a treasurer of a foundation is in charge (as long as that person is reliable - we need to find ways to guarantee that)
b) there were premines that were even hidden from the community - this is nothing but stealing from everyone. Community premine would be a way to give back to the community and reward not only miners but also those who are active in the community.


No, this was just an initial idea and it needs to be figured out what is best. I think the length of distribution should be related to the time we expect it will take the society to accept crypto + more time where even Joe the plumber can mine. You can even think about concepts like Aircoin (failed in the end?) that adjust distribution in relation to value.


The main benefit is: hashrate. It is what is threatening Quark´s perspective and subsequently value and trust.

Maybe it is even possible to combine the superblock idea with the "companion coin" approach by handing over the superblock in relation to share holdings of the companion coin after a certain period (say 3 years) and by that merging the two coins eventually. (If Quark didn´t become solid in three years then it is not likely to become an accepted crypto, but yeah, could be more or less).


I hope so as well. I mean, I am an idea guy , I am just throwing around scenarios that someone else needs to work out - but in any way it is better if the community comes together, discusses and looks out for challenges and possibilities. Let´s discuss other solutions as well.

Sounds great quarkfx and very well though, especially the part on developer earnings which i believe is the first time i see it explained this way. I like how you made the distribution model longer on this one which means more miners will join which means more supporters and a bigger community. Although have you thought about which algorithm and should it be ASIC resistant and Quarks algo? I think botnets should not have a chance to mine.

10% community premine sounds good, however some might be negative about it so you need to shine extra light into this matter than the average coin announcement Thread. I think with the proper explanation it's acceptable

Have you also though about how many coins will be created?

Also can you explain about the benefits the merge mined coin will give to Quark?

For the rest i'm pretty excited about this and pretty sure it will raise attention. People tend to rely a lot on the core members behind a coin and look for interaction with them. This gives them lots of trust as well, so hopefully this part won't be underestimated.

True, and I mean, what value have 99% of all coins if not speculation? The real value is the community and their actual capability to create innovative things & to convince others.

As long as a coin has some value (even if it used for quark only) there will be people exchanging it for btc or ltc and eventually for other goods.

You can't stop a free market.

"Pretty certain" is not enough for assuming it is this way. I saw many people selling off because they lost trust in Quark. I saw active Quarkers getting inactive. I don´t care who it is ("non tech" "tech" whatsoever) but I care for the reason, and the reason is that there was a lack of activity from the development side.

Your argumention doesn´t take into account that we need an active community more than anything else/ as if the Quark would just survive because it is good but that is not the case. It won´t.  Again: I followed all relevant forums and I know who became inactive because things were not moving forward. Handwaving is not the solution, it is the cause of our situation now and I personally won´t accept that to happen again. We have a momentum now, we shouldn´t waste it.

Now let me answer @silvermetal


Needs to be on exchanges, sure. Bittrex could be a good point to start. It is also possible that we woud need to create giveaways to get it on other mayor exchanges.


Well, why is it attractive to mine at all? We need to offer something, most important: a perspective. If the coin is good and we build a solid framework then people will jump on board.

From my perspective on cryptocurrencies in the future people won´t accept one coin but rather whole sets like Moolah, so it would be rather the question if we should push it onto those services and I think we should do that. Or else: why not?

One wallet is a good idea. Beside this we can promote it on every channel we have in control (Facebook, Twitter, Homepage, Reddit, etc. pp.)