hmmm - ok let me show you simplicity, i don't want to state you are uneducated or anything i just want to show you some points:

and let me explain, maybe you should re read what i said -  i'm not here to "sell" the currency Quark to you, i don't care i'm here to educate institutional investors that might read this at a later date -  i can copy it and repost if i have to -

you do what you think is best but let me just fill you in on a few pieces of common knowledge :


- investors and miners are not in correlation, and the investors decides, you can mine to your hearts content but without new energy flowing to the currency you have "sugar cubes."  or i like to say plastic beads.

- the mined distributed reward mean the currency supply is not able to be manipulated by miners , so in essence Quark took the miner manipulation out of the equation, what's that do when education enters the market?

well who will like that? miners or investors ?

its pretty simple isn't it ?

an investor that has to try to second guess what monopoly is on what piece of mining hardware, spin it how you like , but investors don't like uncertainty, how do they know your not going to dump the monopoly you have on them at any time in the future -  this is impossible with Quark.

next >

- the EQ reward means that this design can't be monopolized in the future, this is another attractive thing for an investor because if you are in long term if you have monopoly that leads to a dead currency.  ( i don't have time to explain this but if you really want to know i will point you in the right economic  direction)

- the multiple hash meant that in the time it was mined and went to zero there was no possibility of and ASIC or monopoly that's a part of history now.  

- this means only buyers own it and only sellers can sell .


V

everything else that has either a mining monopoly or an IPO - i'm sure that some people might invest in these things , but i find it so far out of comprehension at this stage i can't comment on it - hey i might be wrong you might be right, lets see in the future  : )


** i will exclude MRO from this at this time as i don't know enough about it .  
*** also everything else is basically a gimmick, spin it how you like , but when fiat money is peso worthless i want simple not gimmicks. Plus Quark can add any feature that any other monopoly fake crypto can also in the future.  -

Most of that was unnecessary.


I really don't think institutional investors are going to buy into a coin that has no future due to premine. They would make lots of profits only if people decided to get on board. But the only people on board are the people apart of the premine, no reasonable person would mine or buy into this coin.

Also you have no incentive to get miners on board so you're susceptible to 51% attacks. Good luck with that.


Depends on the investor. Why would someone invest into a coin that has no future and just a bunch of greedy preminers?


You're forgetting that you need the miners to stop a 51% attack and just gave away all of that incentive to the preminers.


To be honest, the Quark system is not attractive to any outsider.


Yeah, it is.


Investors don't like uncertainty. I am sure they are asking questions like:

"Why should I invest into a premine?"

"With the focus now on generation 2 alternative currencies, some that are anonymous, some that have turing complete contracts, why should I invest in a Bitcoin clone with huge premine and no 51% security?"


Except if Monero grows huge and remains CPU only, it would take about 0.01% of that hashpower to attack and destroy all confidence in Quark for good.


Nothing is certain. People that say "no possibility" are generally misinformed.


It's more likely only sellers will sell it. Not sure who will buy it, probably someone who doesn't know a lot duped by your sales pitch.


Please add the following:

- Turing complete contracts.
- Ring signatures.
- instant confirmations.
- Side chains and side trees.
- Ability to run homomorphic encrypted applications on top of nodes that are organised and controlled by a turing complete blockchain (probably appear in Ethereum version 2)

It was easier than doing my assignment.

Path of least resistance.

Stupid thing is due in 2 hours.

ha ha ok lets leave it at that - there was much talk about "premine" : D  lets add "premine" to Quarks list and i will take your list to 1000 investors, but i'll explain underneath the incomprehension listed above, is a monopoly of mining hardware or an shady IPO and those people control the currency units and the price , lets see who wants what in the future?

sound fair?

we probably don't have to add anything else?

: D

i value  your opinion very much. could you give us your opinion on XC

I don't know much about it except what is there in the website.

Its fully mined market cap is $25M, compared to Monero's $45M and DRK's $220M.

It has been in a pump.

It is all up the the devs and community at this point. I believe DRK will fail and hope that MRO succeeds, but can't say of this one.

this is probably really a no-one-knows-thing. I think ring signature is superior to coin-mixing, dark has a imo small first mover advantages, both have excellent developers. monero has for me a non-optimal emission curve.

one thing that differs altcoins from bitcoin is its changeability. if one thing is not perfect or it is better done in another way, good altcoin developers change it. this makes the decision above not more easy  

I think a fee based on the value transferred is a natural thing. I envision that 0.01% should be low enough to cause no problems.

If you think people would leave Bitcoin if such a fee was implemented, why do you think they use PayPal or WU with their 4-10% fees?

Shocker: I myself use one bitcoin service that takes 0.90% as fees. It is just so handy for small transactions.

Well, yes but... so?  That's kind of my point.  It's more space efficient, but it still needs a billion dollars worth of security.  If you pay for the same space you use to secure a six-dollar SatoshiDice transaction, you won't get a billion dollars worth of security.  

On the contrary, basing the amount of security you're willing to pay for on anything other than the value you need to secure is what is not anchored in the reality of the situation.  It was an easy mistake to make in 1998 because Satoshi was not thinking about the concentrating effects of special-purpose security hardware.  Now that our security is 99%+ provided by such hardware, we have to structure our payment to provide for that, rather than providing for the incidental storage and bandwidth costs.  Storage and bandwidth are not where our security is coming from.

The choices are:

General inflation proportional to the amount of the money supply would impose the cost of security on all holders, regardless of how often or in what amount they make transactions.

Transaction fees proportional to the amount of the individual transactions would impose the cost of security on those actually making the most and the largest transactions.  

The "right answer" is probably some mix of the two.  But it certainly is not block subsidies tapering off to zero while transaction fees remain unrelated to the amount of security we need to purchase for them.