It's clear from the error code on OS X that the client was built with xcode/port installed. Try that first.

It's a shame the homebrew instructions don't. work.

If you don't see that there's a technical forum full of pleas for people who are having issues with wallets, sending transactions, quark disappearing, etc., then it's easy to say that there's nothing to 'fix'. But, further, a coin's intrinsic value derives from continued development of that coin; the introduction of new features, refinements in client, etc. There was no active, forward development of quark.

I will say that development does not end with code improvement. Development extends to coordination and management, infrastructure improvements, public relations and branding, etc. None of which happened during the period between launch and November. When I stepped in to the Quark project, I helped to bootstrap community development while we frantically tried to find Max. I got our IRC development channels up and running, did outreach, did a code audit, pushed for and worked on the blockchain audit, etc.

I highly suggest you look at the audit of the blockchain. It's very telling. When we claim that 100 wallets (not people, wallets) holding 60% of the monetary supply isn't 'bad' because other coins are similar, we should also remember that other coins still have the prospect for participation in mining, whereas Quark does not.

I would suggest that people read http://forum.qrk.cc/post/8142

It's a collated post regarding all of the research that went in to the blockchain audit and the resultant findings.


What individuals on the outside don't see are the private forums/messages/irc logs from individuals who stepped up to the plate in order to get development started again. If you look at the codebase, you'll notice that there haven't been any commits to any files since the initial release in July, with the exception of the addition of a few seed nodes. If you compared the codebase to SIFcoin, Quark's predecessor, you'll find that the codebase is, in most cases, identical. This is the nature of altcoins, many of them are copies of one another.

I bring this up to clarify that there was no active development between release and last week. In our effort to get development started again, we tried to reach out to Kolin and Max. And they would pop up here and there, but were, in general either hard to get in touch with, or it was hard to get them to answer specific questions.

We know that Kolin bribed Bill Still; the thread is still on Bitcointalk. We know that the difficulty skyrocketed in the initial days and the growth curve indicates that half, if not more, of the coins were mined in the initial month. We know that there's a single mining pool that constitutes 90% of the network and that the multiple big-rig workers are, most likely, Kolin's. There are many, many circumstential factors that need to be rebutted, but they... haven't been.

I'll be glad to answer any questions that people have, either here or through PM.

94i7T5pVSAQntX3XjGu5LzddGGSosrG5vQ

Cheers

NfkU4H4YfyTXndKJocz3WKWcnfg3x7nKS9

Cheers!

yogtsxCcnfMDZg3UajsGBCBEwimqekZhK

Cheers.

It uses all of the crypto functions that were SHA-3 finalists: Blake, BMW, Groest, JH, Keccak, and Skein.

http://explorer.andarazoroflove.org/quark/block_crawler.php

I'm working on getting Abe up and running.

I implore anyone who wants to talk about future Quark development to hop onto #quark-dev on Freenode.

I'm very interested in checking out your exchange.

Attempts to talk to the 'dev' have been... unfruitful.

To clarify on the 'fork' issue. Those of us considering developing a quark-based coin are still discussing whether or not to keep the existing blockchain. If we do, the existing public ledger will be adopted at the time of the release of the first Quark-derivitive release, and any transactions/account balances from that point backwards will be adopted into the new coin, meaning that individuals with a stake in Quark won't lose their efforts.


I've been advocating using an engineered 'exodus block' that will effectively execute a reverse stock split between the old block and the new block at some ratio (which I believe should be 10:1); meaning that the circulation of Quark would be reduced to 25.7 million. A mining schedule could then be effected that produced the same benefits of Quark (high-circulation, high-fungibility, low incentive to hoard), but made it much more fair to those only getting involved now.

The 'pre-mining' issue, though it was never an actual pre-mine, is the reason for the backlash against Quark. I believe it can be, and needs to be, fixed otherwise Quark is likely to fade into obscurity.

I run a consulting firm in Upstate New York that specializes in virtual currency technologies. As of this past week, we started accepting Quark for payment. I work with clients from Albany to Toronto and am not only informing them of the transactional advantages of quark, but next week I'll be helping two businesses in the Rochester area start accepting Quark directly.

Our website is http://entropyextropy.com/

iQ1ZmEmBhiqp6m27ZxASLqayw2AVegY2w2

Cheers!

Are you kidding me?

I'm very bullish on Franko.

And I wouldn't mind getting in on a giveaway.

FEMFeRYZn5Bo3izpSGpSFaAjE9dHR99y6C

1H5MPJojDKyQNKBBMWhmdTG4q7CgKeCDrJ

Cheers!

Tweet @BigVern

Seriously. He's helped me on a number of occasions. And he'll give you his skype for better service.

I'm very bullish on Quark, for a number of reasons. If you ignore coinmarketcap.com, which hasn't updated a number of coins today, Quark currently has a market capitalization of around ~80 million, bringing it into fourth place.

It looks like a junk coin because of the number of units in circulation, but I consider this to be an advantage because it's much more fungible than BTC or LTC. There's a lot of hot air being made about the 'hold vs. spend' paradox of BTC as money, and I believe the distribution of Quark solves this for quotidien transactions. Further, it has a .5% inflation rate, meaning a set 1 million Quarks mined per year; this to me encourages circulation.

I'll copy what I posted in another thread:

The top ten cryptos by market cap. are BTC (SHA256) LTC (Scrypt) Peercoin (SHA256) Quark (6-Factor) Namecoin (SHA256) Megacoin (Scrypt) Feathercoin (Scrypt) Primecoin (SHA256) Protoshares (POW) Worldcoin (Scrypt).

I firmly believe that the most secure top-runners should have difference hashing algorithms to prevent market panic if crypto flaws are found. Imagine if we received a Snowden/Greenwald expose that indicated that SHA had been compromised by either a private or national entity; consider the market panic that would ensue in that case. BTC/LTC/Quark (I know, I know, as Max Keiser says) makes sense to me. They each use different hashing algorithms and could, in theory, absorb market fluctuations from each other in the case of attack.

Protoshares has a very interesting ASIC resistant algorithm, but they aren't at all meant to be used in a currency context; much like namecoin, they have a specific niche that they fill.

Even BTC lacked an infrastructure once; investor confidence is one thing that can lead to that.

I'll also point out that, as of this evening, Quark is sitting at a market cap. of around $84 million, bringing it fourth of the cryptos.

The top ten are BTC (SHA256) LTC (Scrypt) Peercoin (SHA256) Quark (6-Factor) Namecoin (SHA256) Megacoin (Scrypt) Feathercoin (Scrypt) Primecoin (SHA256) Protoshares (POW) Worldcoin (Scrypt).

I firmly believe that the most secure top-runners should have difference hashing algorithms to prevent market panic if crypto flaws are found. BTC/LTC/Quark (I know, I know, as Max Keiser says) makes sense to me. Protoshares has a very interesting ASIC resistant algorithm, but they aren't at all meant to be used in a currency context; much like namecoin, they have a specific niche that they fill.