Posts made by Kevlar

It’s not about debate. It’s about repeating information that has repeatedly been debunked.

Information designed to mislead people, hurt people, and generally stop them from understanding what it is we’re talking about. That’s what a liar does: They tell lies.

[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated Forum rules section1, rule 3]

It’s really disgusting behavior and I’m sick of having to defend myself from it.

And as usual the trolls can’t not take the discussion off topic. It always has to center around me. Not what’s good for the coin.

Edit: Well kelsey edited his post so he no longer was playing armchair doctor, trying to make me out to be the one with the problem. Now it just says, “sorry hadn’t you left?”. It was another good example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Kelsey, please, stop the trolling. It’s old.

Our testnet finally restored in core. I set up a p2pool in testnet , It is http://testnet.ftc-c.com:19328/static/

His name is testnet3 , Between 0 to 9 block is scrypt , block 10 is neoscrypt. My miners are working in testnet. I can find new block, send coins to another.

1)start testnet

feathercoin-qt.exe -testnet -addnode=testnet.ftc-c.com

2)Mine in testnet

cgminer.exe --neoscrypt -w 32 -I 14 -o stratum+tcp://testnet.ftc-c.com:19328 -u TSdvuMxasqmPwNx9oh1hJN1nMMDtKE81Le -p x

That’s fantastic work Lizhi! Death to backdoors and tyrants who control our blockchain!!! Full speed ahead!

They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones. Why shouldnt we want this? Ofc we want that, no doubt.

No, you don’t. You’ve fought against me, and it, tooth and nail.

They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation. Even Bitcoin is manipulated by whales, but thats how markets work if they are that small. - Why should we take any advantage there, just a lie.

You SHOULD take advantage there if there’s advantage to be taken. There’s much advantage in a stable currency.

They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack. We also want to have that. Feathercoin took the challenge and went over to NeoScrypt to secure the blockchain and NOT to leave them in the hands of a few ASIC Farms.

No you don’t, you’ve fought against it, and me, with whatever resource you could bear to muster.

They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones. Also open for that, no prove that we are against that.

The proof is in every reply in the “Future of FTC” topic.

They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back. Sounds good, never actually heard of it, so why would you know that we are against that?

Because you’ve fought against me, and it, like I was taking your baby away.

They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money. Thats also not true, but its not that the price/value is in our hands, neither do we want to control it completely?

The price isn’t, but what if it told you the decision making power COULD be? I guess you don’t want that, because you’ve fought against it, and me with great vim and vigor.

They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave. Ideas which arent related in any way to our system we are running since 2013 and screw up all who invested into the current one?

Wait a cycle…

Are you trying to tell me that everything I just described is ‘unrelated’? Are we even speaking the same language here?

They _don’t _want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening. We are aware and understand what you are willing to do. But its not false to have an own opinion on all this? Why is that wrong?

You’re not. I can prove it because you CONSTANTLY misrepresent it. There’s no problem with having your own opinion, it’s the constant lies and misinformation campaign that we’re collectively struggling against.

And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money. I have to turn this around. You want to do a project which hasnt to do anything with our current system. And saying its a “FTC Community Project” just to use the Brand for your idea that it gains faster traction?

See what I mean about totally misrepresenting it? There’s your perfect example.

I don’t want to do a project. I’m discussing ideas for a project that has EVERYTHING to do with the current system. It would be a **MAJOR **upgrade for it. No one said it’s a “FTC Community Project”. No one EVER said that. You just invented that. And no, the idea of the use of the brand is NOT just to gain faster traction, it’s to provide complimentary services FOR the brand and FOR the brand’s existing product.

Now do you see what I mean about constantly misrepresenting it?

I was going to try and stay off the forum for a bit, but its too tempting. Well done for making this thread and keeping it on track, Spartan.

Of all of Kevlar’s ideas discussed in slack, one of the most extreme I think solves the most of the problems. Create the second chain and assimilate the first as either a sidechain or as counter party assets. As a sidechain you could remove miners and use the delegates proof of work as the proof of work for BC1, not in a dissimilar way to litecoin and doge merged mining.

Since delegates would be the only miners, coin tokens would be issued to them. However why stop there? Using Kevlar’s Coin Days Destroyed health metric to regulate inflation, coin production would essentially pause until such a time that the network was displaying traits of a healthy economy. Delegate miners would still have the incentive of the issuance of shares as the reward for mining even if coin production was paused so the cogs would keep turning. Neoscrypt would be redundant in this model (unless for historical sake, the delegates used it at low/zero difficulty)

And important point to add, is that voting shares and coin tokens are very different. If you want to buy a cup of coffee, you wouldn’t really want to use voting shares directly. You are not handing over shares, you are using tokens to simulate money. Both can exist, both have uses.

Because BC2 would be used as the primary chain, BC1 sidechain would benefit from faster transaction times. Decreasing the transaction times down to 10 seconds.

Advantages

BC1 get’s the love it needs.
No need for ACP. Both blockchains secured by the delegates.
Faster Transaction Times.
Inflation could be controlled.
Psychological link between the two chains. Since BC1 is dependant on BC2.

Disadvantages

You’d pee off the miners. They would have to become delegates to get any reward.
Not everyone is in favour of changing the inflation model.
BC1 would be hard forked. All clients and exchanges would need to update, else miners could keep PoW going on their own fork.
If there’s no coin reward to issue, you could just use CP assets.
Time and effort put into Neoscrypt would be wasted

Well you left out all the other advantages. Like asset issuing, asset value pegging, a decentralized exchange, p2p loans… the list is quite extensive.

But good job at the initial pass MrWyrm. I look forward to this list being expanded.

[Edit: Text deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]

[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]

Now, can we please get BACK on topic? If you want to flame me, there’s totally a separate topic for that…

If a new exchange services a different market then the current then it can increase liquidity.

Oh yeah?

Prove it.

I can show you ALL KINDS of times when a new exchange added a pair, and it resulted in a dilution of liquidity, not an increase. My statement is based on verifiable evidence. Would you like to verify it for yourself?

You might agree with ghostlander, but nowhere has what he said been proposed. There is a reluctance to accept FTC, that’s true, and there are also well debated reasons why. There is reasoning behind not accepting FTC in a hypothetical initial share offering. Our current FTC tokens are hard to value as there’s little to prevent manipulation, a small whale could move the price for his/her gain, there’s no volume. If you want fair delegates, the net needs casting a little wider, as the gene pool here is ever shrinking and hasn’t seen a replacement in it’s numbers, we need fresh blood, coders and service providers , else the delegate system just won’t work. You can’t exchange and value all coins, but all coins are valued against BTC. BTC is still the mother currency. Pegging a (currently hypothetical) ICO against BTC makes sense if you look at from the point of view of hitting the largest possible market. You got doge? Convert to BTC. Got fiat? Convert to BTC.

Are you are hoping that by accepting FTC there will be a rush to buy up FTC to burn to shares and you can profit from the whales manipulating the market? How will that help value the newly created shares? The very same shares that are to be the incentive to attract new coders et al to run as delegates and help us move Feathercoin forward. It’s critical to the whole delegate system! You’d be running as a delegate right? Since mining isn’t profitable, only the shovel sellers and the energy companies are benefiting from the teams hard work.

We’ve lost great people in the past, people who could now run as delegates and be fairly rewarded for their time sacrifice. No more begging for tips. We won’t have to lose another ChrisJ or see services dry up. We could even look to secure and speed up and secure (no 51% attacks and ACP!) BC1 using the PoW done by the delegates. That’s also a possibility. But you need a strong and healthy delegate system for that to work.

Or are you are saying is that you deserve an upgrade path? But that only makes sense if BC1 is being replaced, there is no way to provide the extra features we need to become relevant again without a complimentary blockchain.

I’m not against the idea of a really small percentage welcome share bundle dropping on FTC addresses, I think that’s something we could debate the merits of. I am against 1-1 swapping of FTC/FTCShares, as it runs the risk for devaluing and breaking the delegates reward system, making it all pointless.

Or is the argument that you want your tokens all on one blockchain? Feathercoin must only have one BC? You could do that to, that’s a possibility, you could have FTC destroyed on BC1 and recreated as counter party tokens and again enjoy the benefits of the faster blockchain and the stronger security models without ACP and the risk of 51% attacks.

What’s the argument for not doing it?

So please quit pretending that the proposed ideas are not for the greater future of Feathercoin, because quite honestly, without this sort of crazy idea, we will just fade into insignificance and lose more members to a wasteful and broken incentive scheme. :'(

Well I can summarize that for you MrWyrm.

Kelsey, Mirrax, Chekaz, and Ghostlander don’t want it.

They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones.

They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation.

They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack.

They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones.

They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back.

They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money.

They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave.

They don’t want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening.

And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money.

…

That’s the argument.

Not that it won’t work (it does). Not that it can’t be done (it has been done). Not that it won’t provide security and value to the existing blockchain (it would). Not that these services are not useful or complimentary (they are). Not that the market isn’t hungry for these services (they are).

The argument is as simple as “I do not want it, therefore you will not do it.”

btc38 listing should finally provide lost liquidity to the market

Try to buy some FTC on cryptsy, lets say worth 20BTC…imposibble atm…

So this should have tremendous effect on price and price discovery, because right now you can not really sell/buy even modest qtty.

A new exchange listing won’t supply liquidity to an liquid market, it will just dilute it further, causing more price deflation.

Yes, it will totally have a tremendous effect on price discovery as the market makers arbitrage the currency down to 1 satoshi.

These trends are well understood and well documented. Quit lying to people.

You was not listening a single line of what I said.

Instead you try to gain power and polish your ego with every post made.

Unfortunately for you more people are observing your psychopatic diarhea and making they own conclusion.

Yet I am not calling you an idiot because you do not fit the definition of idiot.

So no, I am not an idiot. Do you even know what term idiot reffers to?

If not, than please educate yourself and try not to tear part of information I am providing to you out of context as always.

Read the whole article and make a public appology for start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Yes Mirrax, you’re an [removed insult]

[removed insult] or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

That PERFECTLY describes this behavior of yours.

Do you understand why?

Because with every post I made, I was giving away my power, not collecting more of it. And yet you’re too dull to see that.

Because my ego is battered, bruised, and laying on the ground, beaten. You see, I thought I could show this crowd something interesting. Something amazing. Something really incredible. And for the most part? For all but 4 people? I totally succeeded.

But on those three people, I spent 90% of my energy, trying to show them something they would never open their eyes to see.

I do not fit the definition of an idiot. A[ ]hole? Sure. Evil? Maybe. Driven and passionate? Absolutely.

But you, Mirrax, are the very textbook case study for a person who constantly acts counterproductively. I’ve documented a small stream of this constant behavior on your part here: [link removed]

And so I will take my ideas and ride off into the sunset, because the team of 20 or so we built and the friends we made are SO much bigger than 4 [profanity] who want only to stifle any innovation which does not have their name attached to it.

Goodbye, good luck, and [removed profanity] Mirrax. You are the reason Feathercoin will never go anywhere. I hope you sleep ok at night knowing that.

+1

yes i’m lost at why we now have a forum full of dribble about a new ICO coin that supposedly (stated by its constant pusher) has nothing to do with feathercoin,

on most forums this would be labelled as spam and those who continually publish it get banned.

Well as is typical, you have failed to picked up on what the majority has already understood.

Which is just fine. Kill the thread, win the misinformation war, and continue on as if it never happened. I’m sure you’ll all be better off for it.

The majority has already joined up, and we are WAY better off without you 3 [removed insult]. We’re done here.

Bingo!

Mirrax, [removed personal attack]. I’ve already addressed this: https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/9026-the-future-of-feathercoin-ftc-v2-ft2/?p=74870

The point of it is to answer questions about the new models we’re exploring, not ‘sieze’ anything from anyone. Why do you keep repeating that lie?

so you’re not doing anything with the feathercoin, including launching another coin under the feathercoin brand?

you have this tendancy if someone doesn’t agree with your idea, that you have to label it as not understanding your idea.

and its not just semantics, you conitually show (and it itself shows gaping flaws in your ideas) you do not comprehend the most basic simplist terms price and value. (yes earlier you added a basic dictionary definition as a reply yet didn’t seem to comprehend what you copy pasted)

in anycase in cryptos you can’t use real world markets (where there are things of fundamental value) as an accurate analogy.

Yes, Kelsey, I’m not doing anything with ‘the feathercoin, including launching another coin under the feathercoin brand’.

Would you like me to call to your attention the times where I have stated this? In this very discussion even? And in others? And Calem has said it too? Shall I link you to where you replied to me saying I’m not doing anything at all?

I do not have a tendancy to do that at all. If someone doesn’t agree with my idea, I’m totally cool with that. They can not agree with it all they want. If they display a total lack of understanding of the idea being presented when expressing said disagreement? I will tell you: You’ve not understood the idea.

YOU, kelsey, have NOT understood the idea. You have labeled it as damaging when the opposite is true.

I’m VERY happy for you to elaborate on the WAYS in which the idea is damaging, because every time you do you demonstrate that you do not understand the idea. This seems to be the way people like you learn best: You put forth your incorrect understanding, and then are corrected on it. I can only surmise this because any attempts at telling you these things just results in you putting forth your incorrect understanding of it so it can be corrected.

Like, for instance, the purpose of an ICO. You assumed it was to model entrepenuership. You never asked who the funds would go do (they would be destroyed), or if there’s any examples of this with other coins that are NOT massive scams that have lead to a rock solid valuation of the services (there are quite a few). You never stopped to understand the merits of the model, you just dismissed it as bad, and I’ve spent the rest of the time explaining to you what it is that you have completely overlooked in your hasty assumptions.

I’ve not seen any evidence of a ‘lack of comprehension of the most basic simplest terms of price and value’. I didn’t copy/paste anything, I wrote that out without any reference at all. I’d believe you even a little if you were to show me what it is I’ve gotten confused, but you haven’t. You’ve just been trolling me.

Finally, your last statement makes me wonder if YOU have any idea what a ‘real world market’ is, since you seem to think that crypto-currencies are not a ‘real world market’. Since I’m making my living by profiting in said market, and that market is operating in the real world, and I’m paying my real world bills with that profit, I would beg to differ…

Theres ShapeShift and Coinnector.

These were temporary solutions I pushed for last year. the plugins were just the stepping stone to a decentralised exchange on the BC. We just didn’t know of the solutions available at the time because Neo took priority…

Really? You had the option between a killer-application-market-is-demanding-it decentralized exchange (which was already in existance), and a less-efficient-more-wasteful-worse-for-ROI-not-supported-by-the-market-security-killing change to the hashing algo (as if that drives value in a coin…), and that got the priority?

Wow! Just… wow!

1. Core Update, hold price. If have not core , all will say “The development team has dissolved.The finder escaped.” Then the price will be 500 sat, or less.

2. Decentralized Exchange, it is my goal. from a technical standpoint,I might need DPoS, It provides a more powerful processing power.for instance 10 seconds to produce a block, easy to upgrade.

The backward is death, live only to have the future.

1. Price isn’t determined by the developer. It’s determined by a process called ‘price discovery’, and is fundamentally different than ‘valuation’. Core updates which do not address the inflation problem can do absolutely nothing to help the price long term, they can only give it a quick bump on news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discovery

2. Decentralized exchange. It’s already built, why would you want to reinvent the wheel? In order to have a decentralized exchange, you need the ability to issue new assets on the blockchain. Since you can’t do that on the current blockchain, any talk of this MUST fall under that header. DPoS is NOT required.

I offer a variety of options, Users have their own judgment. They have brains.

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought from the screenshot that it was only Coinector. How do you choose the other options?

100% agree, but it seems to be very distant from the direction you’re trying to take feathercoin.

No, Kelsey, that is EXACTLY what we’ve been describing to you that you have failed to understand.

It’s really quite impressive how you can ask someone if they’d be interested in a solution, and they go “YES PLEASE!” but if you start to describe any single aspect of that solution, all the have is counter examples of why that solution hasn’t worked in the past when tried under completely different circumstances which are completely irrelevant to the solution being described, and are only too willing to dismiss any examples of it working, and the conditions which made it work.

They never actually stop to listen to the whole of the solution, they just go “Wut? ICO? [profanity]!” and tune the rest out, because they have all these preconceived notions about ICOs and people using them as a way to scam people out of their money. They never stop and hear that in a PoB ICO, the money is destroyed, so it doesn’t go to the ‘entrepenuers’, and it doesn’t even resemble a ‘bankers’ model, and that it’s only used to create the initial distribution and valuation and create a fair market price that the shareholders have a vested interest in maintaining the price of on day one.

They never stop to listen to the reasons why such a thing not only is desirable, but in fact a well tested and well proven model for establishing a fair market value for tokens on a blockchain that the market willingly maintains.

They just declare you incompetent and dismiss everything that you say that follows.

Pitchforks and torches.

…

And for the last time, I’m not doing anything with Feathercoin.

PLEASE quit repeating that lie.

kevlar stop with this liar liar pants on fire bs, its not the schoolyard and the smae mentality against everyone who dislikes your ideas is geting old.

in fact i gave you the benefit of the doubt and even apologised when i thought you where a “Kevlar-ftc” in irc, and you said you werent, i took your word on it an apologised, even though i find it extremely unlikely that anyone would pretend to be a kevlar from ftc in a dgc irc chat when you are a nobody.

Kelsey, as I said I’m not on IRC. Perhaps you should ask Kenel? I wasn’t involved in any of that.

It’s not BS if it’s demonstrably untrue. We’ve pointed out all the ways in which a new blockchain can provide entirely complimentary services to an existing one, did you understand what those complimentary services were and how they can enhance the existing offering?

Because if you did, you would know that complimentary services aren’t damaging, they’re… well… complimentary.

Do you understand what those complimentary services are? And why they’re complimentary? And why they would add a lot of value to the existing blockchain?

Can you list them? Can you explain to us why they’re NOT complimentary, and in fact damaging?

Can you explain, for instance, why a way to secure the existing blockchain much more securely while eliminating redundant cost is damaging?

Can you elaborate, please, on what it is exactly that enabling token holders with voting rights will do to damage the existing blockchain?

Can you tell us what is it about a decentralized exchange that would cause harm to the exiting blockchain?

Can you elucidate on the reasons why a blockchain which doesn’t compete for hash power would take hash power away from the existing blockchain?

Can you provide good reasoning for why providing a service the market has very much shown great interest and values VERY much over the existing service would be BAD for the brand?

You see, we’re not interested in your opinions. We want evidence of what you’re saying.

That’s all I need to know. Sorry, not interested in your rhetorics.

Well you could have picked that up in the opening statement. I guess you didn’t read it though huh?

I understand you’re not interested in learning. That’s fine. Others are.

what scares me the most about crypto communities is how many can’t get the head around the true potential of p2p alts to fiat, but instead want to derail the opportunities with their would be entrepreneurship. its seem to attract all the wannabe bankers and wanna be corporate wankers who can’t escape the old world fiat systems.

i’ve said it many times before maybe bitcoin was just a social expertiment to show when given the opportunity most people become the greedy bankers they so oppose when they first join this crypto community.

I totally agree Kelsey. The entire opportunity is to ditch those broken, centralized models and move boldly and bravely into a new trustless solution. Of course that won’t just happen over night, but the revolution has very much begun.

One of the major opportunities with blockchains is to provide these services free of the centralization of ‘entrepenuership’, ‘wanna be bankers’, and 'wanna be corporate wanker’s model. By moving these type of services to a blockchain, you can eliminate the centralization entirely, while maintaining all that is great about the services, and creating a trust-less service provider.

Wouldn’t you agree that should be our goal? To utilize these technologies to move us off the centralization of corporations and onto trustless service providers which cannot be hacked, siezed by the government, while middle men take a cut at every opportunity? Isn’t that what you would like to see? An end to the banking model, and a switch to a p2p replacement?

Well as we’ve pointed out repeatedly starting a new blockchain isn’t a damaging idea, it’s a highly complimentary one that would provide complimentary services.

EDIT: Kevlar, offensive language/name calling does not belong here, if you want to do that, go do it elsewhere.