Topic: Quark investors - Quark information on cycles and the push to move towards PoS. (Read 3165 times)

Ive enjoyed the discussion so far.

Interesting dilemma!

However most top big wallets belong to exchanges... See some good discussions blow:
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/25rt89/52_of_quarks_belong_to_only_25_addresses/
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/24c1nq/the_4_richest_quark_address_turns_out_to_be_the/

That simply shows the fact that implementing PoS and not asking people to open their wallets do not work.
However, it is WAY easier to encourage people to open their wallet than to mine. For Quark I don't think it's a problem because there is a strong community behind it.

yeah i do boast about it - because unfortunately you seem like you are new here so you need education likely, so let me help you out:

( i will keep repeating my self i guess)  (i will copy paste this in a notepad so i don't have to keep writing it)

- Quark is fully distributed
 - it has no mining monopoly.
- it can't be price controlled by a monopoly of mining hardware.
 - It can only get more distributed not less  as time moves forward.
- all other currencies can only get more monopolized until full distribution.
- you can't know how to measure how distributed a crypto is because an one person can make 100's of addresses this is basics you need education.

- The best way to measure distribution is to try to do that though a "network effect"
- Quark has a very healthy network effect, a large community and lots of activity  -
- probably about 70 people own most of the BTC that exists in % terms.

and lets not forget.

- people are stupid.

- so the people that accumulated the large wallets and put them in a single address we can reasonable assume they did that for a motive to try to show that Quark is centralized, as all the other Crypto that are monopoly owned by a hand-full of people they (quite naturally) split the units they own up into multiple addresses to fake a healthy distribution.

- but you have only to look and see that there is no activity going on much past this forum on nearly all of these currencies, Bitcoin is the exception because people know that the fiat system looks very shaky  so want a "golden" fall back.

- Quark is the other exception because it has a better economic design than Bitcoin one that encourages activity and distribution, where as Bitcoin has Mining Monopoly inaccessibility and increasingly centralized strict fixed reward - (which i've even seen tards try to deny ??)

even the "cool kids" of crypto "elite" (read semi autistic) agree with the Quark design of the EQ reward.


oh the last one:

^ most people know everything i wrote is common knowledge - if you don't understand this you are probably the person losing money here.

Kolin, you keep boasting about how great Quark's distribution is. In fact it's really bad. 30-40% of all Quark coins are owned by 3-4 people...

http://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-quarkcoin-addresses.html

And actually, one could include considerations of coin age in the Fission protocol too.  Coin age is a parameter that will pinpoint oligarchs so they can be nuked.

What is needed is an algo which will assess a penalty (a drain) against any wallets holding excessively large stakes in the coin. This algo would constantly evaluate and be aware of wealth distribution on the whole network based upon activity recorded in the block chain (pseudo-anonymously).  When the size or advantage of a wallet, or a quorum of wallets, or a "neighborhood" of wallets, reaches a certain threshold or relational structure, then the algo will trigger the "fission" of the coin balance (a small fraction of it) to occur in the designated penalty wallet(s), while the network makes corresponding microdeposits in another designated set of wallets, the beneficiary wallets.

A Fission event may (A) create new coin and/or (B) deduct existing coin.  A Fission event occurs, for example, when one or more stakes becomes "too big," or an oligarchy of stakes becomes too entrenched.  Fission causes the dispersal of coin from the big stake(s) into and among wallets deemed worthy of being beneficiaries.  That opens a wide door, doesn't it?

Fission may accomplish wealth redistribution, or not.  Its up to the devs and the market to decide which fission regimes are the best.  

My preference is to have fission deduct from top stakes and drizzle the harvest into every other wallet on the network in statistically-defined patterns and portions.  

This "fallout" or dust caused by fission can be distributed randomly in all wallets or apportioned methodically into the appropriate beneficiary wallets.  Different coin developers can compete with different coins defining different ways to determine which "standards" and wallets are "appropriate."  It would open up a whole new generation of PoS coins.  

To sum up: In the proposed "fission" mechanism, whenever the algo determines that a critical mass exists in one or more wallets, or that the time has come to forceably reshape the wealth distribution profile of the network, the stakes in the one or more wallets undergo "coin fission," and each stake blasts a calculated sum of coin out into the community to be received however the devs have arranged it. The dynamics of any coin's fission rules can be customized and finely tuned.

And importantly, stakeholders can reasonably predict the consequences of holding a fissile coin, because the terms and criteria are published; however, stakeholders can never predict the precise timing and exact cost of any one fission event (so they cant avoid it). Thus they must acquiesce to the "stake tax" when investing in the coin or they must go find another coin to parasitize.  Still, in a fissile coin, the largest stakeholders do gain enough steady growth overall to compensate and reward them for remaining dominantly invested in the coin.  

My vision of Fission is that it tickles the big wallets more than it mauls them.

Thus, the above concept is a suggestion for implementing a "coin fiission" algo that might save us from the current doldrums of the "gotto go PoS" days of altcoins, where the imperfect infrastructure of the digital economy is selecting strongly for PoS algos even though we may be better off without much PoS.  

The proposed Fission algo will operate upon wallet balances that reach a "critical mass," or throughout a network when it starts dying for lack of liquidity due to excessively large stakeholdings (e.g., high coin age).  Fission imposes a size-dependent cost upon the largest and laziest stakeholders and it makes offsetting deposits in other wallets according to variable rules and goals.  This will promote liquidity in PoS and will smooth out the rough edges of wealth-concentration patterns that would otherwise characterize a mature PoS network.  


Got it?  Great.  Have a beta version in my inbox by tomorrow...

Your comments and criticisms are most welcome...

I understand people have concerns - but we have to do full due diligence and look at all the data -

ha ha..

Not the best example.  Coin2 PoS was 51% attacked.

PoS will not make Quark more inflationary. Currently Quark has a 0.5% inflation every year. We can split it as 0.25% PoW inflation and 0.25% PoS inflation. PoS will NOT kill Quark; instead, it will save it from attacks.

Network security is a very important issue, and PoS is an efficient way to solve this issue. With pure PoW, people has to set up miners to protect the network; given the very low block reward, a smart person doesn't want to mine Quark because the mining income can't even pay electricity. With PoW/PoS mixed, people can simply leave their wallets open to protect the network at a very low cost.

PoW coins with low/no block reward have been shown to not work. A recent failure is Coin2, which was under massive attack and had to implement PoS after that. The attacker even posted in the ANN thread and claimed that he earned 20+BTC by 51% attacks. Considering Coin2 only has a very small market cap, 20BTC is a huge number. Quark could be the next Coin2 if we blindly believe Quark is unique and shouldn't be changed in anyways, and don't take any measure to increase network security.

Low hashrate keeps investors away. Currently the hashrate is only about 400M. At this hashrate an investor is getting worried because one could lose his/her investment after a attack. This is definitely not good.

PoS is stronger than you think. I know recently there are some discussions on whether PoS is safe enough. Someone doubts if PoS provides enough protection. Yes, PoS could be attacked even only with 1% of the total coins, but it will happen ONLY IF very few people are connecting their wallets to the network and the active stake on the network is less than 1%. PoS can be 51% attacked if the attacker own more than 51% coin-age than the "active" coin-age on the network. We can simply encourage people to leave their wallets open when idle to increase the active stakes on the network to gain enough protection, much easier than encouraging people to fire up their equipment and burn electricity to mine. (Added on 05/31)However, implementing PoS and not asking people to open their wallets do not work. Coin2 is still a bad example here since it was said to be 51% attacked even after PoS implementation.

Price increase will not solve the security issue. If we do some good promotions and more people are buying (increase the price), the hashrate will go up as a result. Promotion is important; however, when the price goes up, attackers also have more incentive and are willing to pay more to do the attack since he can earn more after the attack. If price and hashrate increase at the same time with a similar scale, network security is not improved.

quark is just fine. Stop making all coins the same. Quark has been copied many times - because it is good. Please no pos. Pos is more inflation and reduces the value in the long run. don't kill quark with pos. Thanks.
Have some patients with it and improove otherwise. do not dilute scarce coin.

Welcome : )

Thanks for taking the time to sign up

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/howto-kill-any-100-pos-coins-owning-less-than-1-of-all-coins-604716


^^^^^
i'm just trying to  "plain language" DE_logics attack theory on PoS


----------------------------------------------------

Interesting just because i think no one outside of hard core Crypto is going to understand any of that, - can i just state it in plain language and you tell me if a am  far or close to the mark?


PoS  means Proof of ownership like owning a Bond. + interest.

When you hold units of crpyto they age like bonds and mature giving back an "interest" stake - 

DE_logics is basically saying  or theorizing that under certain conditions  if you had:


10 Bonds (ten pieces of interest bearing paper) each worth 1 unit + 1 unit of interest.

you would earn more net interest verses:

One single 10 unit Bond + its interest.

* even if the interest is meant to be equal - i.e the 10 bonds should equal the exact same net return as the single Bond because they are the same units net worth and the interest rate is "fixed" by whole the system.

and in this way, this could be a flaw in PoS  because someone could split up their bonds (something you can do with crypto)  and generate enough interest to control the whole game.



how did i do ?

if its on or close to the mark i will post it back on the other thread as it is relevant - #

Hash will solve itself - but the large community we have will (including myself) chip in and give incentives to new miners .

this is the (i mine with my block eruptor to help the network) scenario that Bitcoin had .

except with Quark we see real benefits so people with a stake in Quark will do this . 

The only point i disagree with is the fast distribution -

- all this done was speed up the natural cycle that all crypto will go though anyhow.

 - so in speeding it up we actually gained adoption - see the Quark community is among one of the largest in Crypto no one doubts that.

- all the time new people are coming on board.

so how did it work ?

we removed the monopoly aspect  the key part of the manipulation that lets a currency be kept high, I just commented also that MRO Monero has this in a limited way - so i predict  (unless i can find proof of Scam) a fall in its price as the emission goes out.

you see we can all learn from Quark , as it leads the way.

why hasn't that moved to price appreciation ?

because simply when it was at 0 there were still large holders as the cycle goes though our community picks up a little bit more, and a little bit more etc.

this means that its inevitable that Quark distributes further in the future, all others still subject to monopoly can't start to do this yet.

Nothing at stake or other similar technique are based on quite a poor Longest Chain Determination algorytm. And the algorytm is also responsible for diminishing PoS contribution to security.

We could demand both larger stake and larger pow difficulty to resolve the conflict iff favor of one of the chains. With this method the attacker will need both 51% of hashrate and 51% of working stake to fork blockchain as he likes. It's not ideal but with such a logic stakeholders will be able to prevent 51% PoW attack and pools will be able to reverse the chain in case of nothing-at-stake.

Thats true unless you have a lot of transactions and economic activity to rely on that. Thats why it is bad for coins long-term to instamine. Definity instamine can give price boost early but hinders adoption and thus usage..

When the mining reward of PoW coin is decreased dramatically, it will require centralized checkpoints like PoS coin.
That is what happened on quark.