QRK will likely fail in a matter of 6 months or less is what I took from this forum, so
technically it's not a scam.
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/1saq3g/i_have_decided_quark_is_not_a_scam_the_bitcoin/cdvrf1f[–]Koooooj 1 point 4 hours ago
I personally seek to point out the flaws in any Altcoin, especially if it starts to gain a lot of attention. In the case of many of the altcoins there aren't a lot of negatives or a lot of positives, simply because they've just taken Bitcoin and copy/pasted the whole source code with some cosmetic difference. This isn't a scam or a particularly shady practice, but it also isn't a way to make a valuable coin--if there's nothing better about a new altcoin then there's no reason to use it over Bitcoin (or whichever altcoin is being copied). It is for that reason that I think 95% of altcoins are junk--they're an attempt for the developers and early miners to make a quick buck based on zero innovation. These new altcoins are a dime a dozen and aren't worth wasting breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).
Some coins do make substantial changes, though--they seek to either address fundamental issues with Bitcoin or they challenge some core philosophy of the Bitcoin network. For example, take Peercoin--they noted that mining by proof-of-work is a process that uses huge quantities of resources so they introduced proof-of-stake. This challenges the very core of Bitcoin's design so it's a currency worth investigating; it's worth finding the flaws in such a system and pointing them out.
To me Quarkcoin is a coin that isn't just a copy/paste of Bitcoin, even though it's pretty much a parameter change and mining algorithm swap. I feel this way because the parameters are changed to extremes--taking the
block reward halving and changing it from 4 years to 3 weeks is pretty major and is more than a tweak--it's a fundamentally different philosophy. In Bitcoin the reward halving was made to be slow and was included, in my opinion, as a way to make the currency supply limited. In Quark it serves as a way to issue all of the currency in a short period of time, such that there is not a substantial incentive for "mining cartels" to form (aside: I don't believe mining cartels exist in Bitcoin, but I accept that there is room for different philosophies and altcoins that support those philosophies).
This design decision has its advantages, perhaps, but it has a fatal flaw: miners can only be expected to expend as much to mine as they are compensated in mining rewards.
If the mining reward halves and the price does not rise (or has only lethargic growth) then miners should be expected to leave the network. This would be no problem if the only purpose that miners serve is to issue new currency, but that isn't even their primary purpose--the miners exist to protect the network from a 50% attack.
Every 3 weeks Quark should expect half of the miners to leave the network unless those miners start being paid better--either with a higher mining reward (which I doubt would ever be considered--it's contrary to the philosophy on which Quarkcoin was founded) or by transaction fees (which I also doubt--it's the tragedy of the commons: the coin can survive if everyone includes substantial mining fees, but to the individual the better move is to not include a substantial fee since everyone else is).
The current mining reward is 16 QRK/block. In a few months that value will drop to its final value of 1 QRK per block.
If the price remains static then that meant the network is paying miners collectively only 6.25% of what they are being paid now. That means that if anyone has 3.125% of the present network then they could reasonably expect to be holding enough computing power to 51% attack the Quark network in about 3 months. The top user at coinmine.pl currently has about 4.47% of the network, and just a few days ago I recall seeing several users with about 3 times that speed (they have dropped out since then, it would appear, since the reward halved).
I am against Quark and I will speak out about it, not because I am jealous of the Quark users nor because I see it as a viable threat that could push out another cryptocurrency. I speak out against Quark because
it is structured in a way that is going to make it fail--and it's going to fail soon (i.e. within 6 months, probably sooner). I speak out against Quark because when that happens it will be a lot of bad press for cryptocurrencies in general. I speak out against Quark because I feel that it is a tool that Bill Still and others are using in order to manipulate people for their own profit, and I want to give those people an opportunity to hear a rational and thought-out reasoning for why I believe that. I will not scream "SCAM." I will not yell "PREMINE." But I will criticize and encourage free discussion with an open mind. I think everyone involved in Quark is either being manipulated or is the manipulator pulling the strings to drive an unviable currency to unjustified heights. I would ask anyone here who is invested in Quark to ask himself which one of those they are.