Quote from: stompix on January 27, 2014, 12:58:27 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on January 27, 2014, 12:17:58 PM

Quote from: stompix on January 27, 2014, 08:08:37 AM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on January 26, 2014, 11:40:05 AM

Quote from: stompix on January 25, 2014, 03:00:43 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on January 25, 2014, 02:50:41 PM

Quote from: stompix on January 25, 2014, 01:07:34 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on January 21, 2014, 07:51:16 PM

Quote from: Orrechorre on January 21, 2014, 07:00:11 PM

why is quark dropping again? Huh

I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins. Embarrassed

I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800)
Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate.
I think that is a problem in a few ways:
1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return.
2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it.

If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals.

IAS

It took you a while , but you finally figured out what I was telling people 20 pages ago..
With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1).
Only the botnets.

Well, it is not exactly a criticism though. The price is just too low (unfortunately). It is in a precarious place for sure.
But, if the price doubles from here, roughly .20 QRK, then we are ok again.
Hopefully these Cryptos start another move.

But regarding your point - "With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). "
We will see. I still think the network will be supported, but the mining model at this price point doesn't work, for sure.
Not a long term model but I will hang out and see what happens and support the network with 500kh/s.

And remember, there will still be around 1,000,000 coins a year mined - so that should EASILY support the network (profit there).
One more interesting thing - Mining is a hobby of sorts and done for more than money. Look at BTC, except for the first miners,
buying BTC is ALWAYS better than mining it. I see that as being the same with other Cryptos most of the time.

IAS

At current price that's 78 000$.
Hmm , even running a pool with 1% fee that's 780$/year and 65$ month and isn't quite attractive.
So , how many computers can you power 24/7/ with 78 000 /year?
Do the math , but the answer... you might be better not finding out.

I'm in Germany, some of the highest energy costs I know of. I pay .30 kw/h.
Now, there are MANY people that pay .10-.15 kw/h - that right there is break even to profit. And, as others have said, there are MUCH more efficient processors than my FX8350 (not efficient).
And then there are a few with near free energy (work, certain countries, etc.)

If you focus on why something won't work, that is what you will find. And vice versa.
So, perhaps just open your perspective a bit, see both sides. Grin

If you say your brakes works fine and you don't test them although lots of people tell you should. you might die in a car accident , thinking that everything is fine.
It's obvious that quark dev rushed to mine all the coins too early and forgot the bitcoin principle that claimed tx fees would be able to maintain the network safe when the rewards goes to near 0.

And now a solutions needs to be diged up in order not to get prisoners of a botnet and a 97% mining pool. Which is what is happening right now.

Lots of people die in car accidents with brakes that are heavily tested. We are dealing with an experimental technology here - this is the testing.
To talk as if we know what is best when the experiment has just started is a bit of a reach. Quark is a variation of BTC to a degree and is trying something different and in a variety of areas. Quite different actually and that is a breath of fresh air.

I gave some pretty fair numbers regarding energy and mining and you skipped right over that. Now, it appears your opinion is set in stone, so I'm not sure
what else I can throw your way. My opinion is open, I don't know but I'm taking part in this experiment understanding the risks.

If you don't want to take part, or you do, then state your point and move on IF you don't care to discuss the alternatives. None of us know and to state that you do, at this point, is ignorance.

The Botnet situation might or might not be an issue. It is certainly interesting, but not high on my list of worries. Something to keep an eye on though.

But, there are many brilliant innovations and possibilities here to keep an eye on. So, I won't get lost in just the part that is unknown. I'll also venture into
the positives of what this coin brings, which has been spoken about at length here and on the Quark forum.

So, the difference between our viewpoints, it appears, is that "you know" and "I don't know". And I've heard it said before, by some very wise people,
to be very careful of anyone who says they know...

IAS

How about a real solution?
Instead of relying on people with high efficiency mining gear or people with "free " energy or living in qatar (? or kuweit?)
- Increase the inflation rate to 1.5 % or 2% in the first year?
- Impose a minimal transaction fee and enforce it?
etc... cause I'm sure there are better ideas how to overcome this that I can't think about it , rather than ... hoping people will or might ?

I see the cryptos as one big experiment but I don't like to see it fail , for any coin (other than pure copycats).
Even if failure means we learn and might do better in the future , i don't like to see something interesting washed away.

Now I can hear you! I really don't have a great understanding about the inflation rate and where it should be. I will say, at current adoption, your level sounds too high.
BUT, as things pick up, I can imagine it making more sense. The match behind all this is beyond me and I'm not sure if the creator really went deep there (and Satoshi with BTC as well.)

As far as coins failing and such, I think we need to see some failures happen within the next year, as currently there is a lot of dilution going on. That said, there needs to be more
than 1 or 2 Cryptos imo. The reasons are vast but difficult to communicate for I intuitionally (not institutionally ;-) see the Cryptos organically interacting with one another in a manner not yet seen (but in years from now).

Looking forward to how this all rolls out,
IAS