The place is not the problem, the instamine is.
Two years into bitcoin you could still get bitcoins without having to risk capital. 6 months into quark? 96% of all quarks mined. So anyone getting in within the last 6 months has 0% risk other than their time/electricity costs. Everyone else has to pay.
If you mine bitcoins you still pay for your equipment and electricity, so you still risk capital. You'll find that mining price and buying price is closely related.
The fact is, bitcoin is still very much an inflationary currency (where the definition of inflation used is "an increase in money supply").
The economic idea behind this model is to have a relative constant money supply. The yearly 0.5% inflation (i.e. increase in money supply) is to reward miners to keep the network going and to replace coins that get lost (e.g. lost wallets).
Bitcoin has a constant money supply, we know exactly when the last block will be mined and how many blocks are mined each day.
I already mentioned that they risk nothing but their time/electricity costs.
I don't have a crystal ball so I can't accurately predict the benefit of your model. The idea is for quarkcoin to find its value by way of price discovery and not be controlled by the difficulty or miners. In theory this could work, but the fact that you've given magnitudes greater of an unfair advantage to such a small group of people is astonishing. Do you really see the whole world adopting something obviously controlled by a small group of people? Our current banking and government systems work this way already. Do you see it ever being more than a speculative asset?Secondly, although your point about a small group controlling a large part of QRK's might be true - it is also valid for nearly ALL coins in existence, including Bitcoin (a thousand people control the majority of bitcoins, if I recollect an article I read recently).
By definition cryptocurrencies are all "unfair" ; thats the whole result of having a) premining b) mining with silly low difficulty in the beginning. Early adopters always have millions of coins whilst later people will struggle to get hundreds.
Even if a coin does not appear to be owned by a relatively small number of people it just means that the early adopters / developers took the time and effort to spread their activity over hundreds of wallets. Not very difficult if you know how to program code.
So your point : Oh no..QRK is unevenly distributed! Really? No shit sherlock! So are all coins, especially in their infancy.
Now, I'm not defending Quark in itself here...rather attacking *all* cryptocurrencies. I think cryptocurrencies are by definition unfair in their design due to premining or extremely steep difficulty curves.
And please...please...stop using the silly bold to emphasize your messages. If everyone starts doing that the forum will be a nightmare to read (as are your posts currently).
