Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 28. (Read 696267 times)

So Ive spent the last month figuring out the strengths of the 4 new core curecoin members and we are ready to hit the ground running. It slowed me down a bit trying to get a few people up to speed and there is still a bit of work to be done. Like C-Genie its fine to have a little knowledge until you want to actually do something in crypto space. There is no replacement for knowing the core of cryptocurrency.

There is an updated version of curecoin on github. Feel free to compile the latest version for yourself if you dont want to wait for the new compiled versions.

To that note, Ive noticed a lot of shit coins adding viruses to their compiled clients ( and sometimes even on their githubs ) that people tend to glaze over.  If you dont trust something dont stop to think that just running it in a VM will save you.

Obviously I am bias to curecoin as a big contender because I know what my plans are and my determination to see it through. I do have other coins I hold and of course I compile them from source.

I will be spending even less time posting here but that is from having a group of new team members that will be doing this for me. They will be getting their final briefing this week. I hope to get back to just working on the code like I much prefer over being a community "cheerleader".

If you have not read it already - Team Curecoin is smashing the record for computational research speeds. Coin price is at all time high and looking bullish. Normally I would give more talk when stopping here about whats happening in our game plans. Right now my big game plan for any free time outside of development plans is to get more rigs to fold with ASAP 

Cheers

nice you can indeed read the block explorer...

Fact is the numbers are doing what they do but NOT for the reasons you state, you are simply making a (half educated - better than not at all) assumption.

We all know curecoin 2.0 has been a long time in the making. I feel like even if you had been talking directly to the developers the whole time you still might not fully "get it"

You should troll harder with facts, your rants just make you look like a fool to anyone who has a clue. Youre kinda like a 2nd grader saying "my big brother can lift 10 cars at once and will beat you up"

If you were properly invested in asic mining you would mine BTC mainly anyways, and have a script set up like most do to mine (random)coin when the difficulty is prime for your asics.

I feel like I wasted 5 minutes writing this. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Let me know if you ever get around to learning how a pow pos hybrid coin works. They are mostly all the same with various tweaks so if you put any effort into it then we can talk about what is really going on. Until then its worthless to try to teach you when you clearly have youre head up your ass.

Cheers

PS to others, feel free to quote me on this whenever computergenie is being a butthead (pretty much all the time)

Because the truth is that it doesn't. I'm a POW mining fan because I'm heavily invested in POW mining equipment, not because it is actually any "more secure" than POS*.


*At a base level POS and POW are the same functions, but the reward and difficulty structures are different.

So maybe you could try to do some lobbying so that the Devs get nicer towards ASIC miners on the future SigmaX coin since a higher number of miners means increased blockchain security... It would be a win-win situation.

Not sure I would call this "very slowly":

~50,000,000PPD increase in a month on top of the ~20,000,000PPD dip (or ~75,000,000PPD from the dip)

Indeed at this point they don't. But my point was that if we could get Big Pharma to buy research in Curecoins/FLDC, they would need to buy Curecoin and this could raise the CURE/FLDC to levels above the 1$/CURE and then folding would be more interesting than mining any other cryptos so even AMD holders would switch their rigs to folding...

That 20% mostly goes to POS wallets under the guise of "mining".  

No matter how you pretty it up, or explain it away, the "Whether you are heavily-invested in ASIC equipment or still have GPUs and CPUs, you can participate" for the OP is, at best, an exaggeration. By the time more than a handful of POS wallets came online, those "heavily-invested in ASIC equipment" got screwed by "participating" in CureCoin any further.

I'm just saying that:

• The more POS wallets that run is the more POW mining gets punished by POS.
• POW miners do get their difficulty raised by POS wallets.
• POS wallets do not get their difficulty raised by POW miners.
• Folding is not mining.

There are well over 6000 registered CureCoin team member accounts on Folding@home ... with an average of ~10% (600) of those actively folding on any given day. Most of the top folders are merge-folding with FoldingCoin. http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_list.php?s=&srt=1&t=224497&p=1

From what I've learned in slack, CureCoin SHA miners compete with staking wallets. As ASIC technology advances, SHA miners can find mining CURE profitable during market gains- which is evident by the number of coins that come up for sale during price run-ups. That said, the coin is not dependent on PoW, since PoS still achieves distributed consensus on the chain. The devs originally put PoW in place to help miners without GPU folding equipment participate in the coin, but also to make sure the chain could be secured with very light-weight mining equipment in case too few wallets were staking in the beginning.

Although I'm obviously not a crypto-currency expert, I've been folding for longer than CureCoin has been around. The results of distributed protein folding research are made open source to any institute or private industry. Any patents resulting from the research are required to be made available for sale to private industry (although the NIH has stepped in to help further develop some research themselves - especially in the areas of Alzheimer's).

Contrary to common cynicism, the research done by distributed computing projects like Folding@home, Rosetta@home and GPUgrid is still in its infancy. There are so many factors effecting the molecular dynamics simulations being performed (right down to the quantum level), that an enormous amount of computing power will be required for decades to come - IF we want to understand them. The economics of this is what make research coins interesting to me. Up until recently, retaining long term volunteers for these projects has been a challenge - at the same time NIH, NSF and ERC funding has been flat or lower than 2002 levels (forget any dedicated HPC systems being built by any government specifically for this purpose until breakthroughs start materializing - the world's militaries still get the majority of use from supercomputers).

I look at Curecoin et al as helping expand the foundations of knowledge for biophysics.

 They don't, though, at this point.

 On folding, based on my own testing on my own cards, a RX 470 pulls very close to the same power that a GTX 1070 does - but manages about 40% of the the PPD  (230-250k on most work units vs 600+ k on most) - which means it's making noticeably less than mining ETH then it does folding for FLDC and CURE combined even at the current very high FLDC pricing - and ETH isn't always the highest income option for a RX 470.
 An RX 480 would be a little closer on PPD, but would also use a little more power vs. a RX 470.
 The best AMD folding card was the FuryX/Nano, and even THAT only managed 400k PPD ballpark on the highest figures I've seen posted for those - and those apparently use a fair bit more power when folding than an RX 470 or a GTX 1070.

 At current pricing, I'd call the GTX 1080 and GTX 1080 ti pretty much a tossup with the GTX 1070 on both PPD/$ and PPD/W - with the overall system cost and efficiency probably favoring the 2 bigger cards by a thin hair now even though the card-level specs still seem to give the 1070 a hair-thin advantage. Seem to come down more to "what is on the best sale right now" for PPD/$ between those three.


 Proof of Research  "difficulty" has actually been increasing the last few days, just very slowly.
 Team CureCoin PPD is at it's all time high, and keeps breaking that every day.


 I suspect the devs seen the miners as a "needed evil" for securing the blockchain, no more no less.
 I am somewhat suprised they allocated 20% to the miners when I think about it.

If you will not, then I will. The devs designed the difficulty in such a way that every block, POS or POW, punishes miners with a higher difficulty which never decreases until a POW block is found (but, as I said, does increase for every POS block found). Every block found in the last 92 hours 31 minutes has added to the POW difficulty while the POS difficulty is less than it was 100 blocks ago. The devs intended miners to be useless (despite what the OP says about 80:20).  

That you can "participate" with ASICs is true, just don't expect 100TH/s of ASICs to get paid enough to cover the electric costs of a CPU.  

It doesn't matter if AMD GPUs are less effective than NVIDIA ones as long as they would make more money folding than mining thanks to high CURE/FLDC prices...

Does Stanford even know CURE and FLDC exist?

 Also, the bulk of those "GPUs mining useless altcoins" would be AMD, and AMD GPUs don't do well at Folding (Vega might change that some, but the RX series isn't competative on a PPD/$ basis much less a PPD/Watt basis).

 

I think that what Rikim says isn't total nonsense...

Curecoin has been created way after F@H to offer some financial reward for folders. The Devs have reached their goal as we will soon be #1 Folding Team and some of the very big folders that have joined the team did it after the CURE/FLDC significant price increases last year and this year.

But the main problem is that folders work for a University (Stanford) who's main (if not only) aim (as for all research teams around the world) is to publish some papers in famous scientific magazines (Science, Nature...). So don't expect Stanford to change their "business" model. They will continue to have a few PHD students setting up a few projects with the aim to publish papers, not trying to raise CURE and FLDC value.

And this is a pity because taking into account the HUGE number of GPUs that are mining useless altcoins all around the World, having a smarter "business" model involving CURE/FLDC could bring many of those miners into Folding and therefore increase the folding power by a factor of several tens or hundreds.

But Stanford prefers wasting time on crap like bringing Android smartphones to Folding. They obviously didn't realize that a bunch of 1080TI's working 24/7 will do more work than ALL the Android clients working from time to time...

So maybe one idea would be to find a bunch of researchers and create a "competing" Folding research lab that would be in tight contact with Big Pharma and do the folding according to Big Pharma needs not with the only aim to publish papers. And of course have Big Pharma pay with CURE/FLDC the research done. Big Pharma money would heavily increase CURE/FLDC value and tons of miners would join the Folding Team. That would lead to more research, more health results and more money for Folders...

 As a reminder. the PRIMARY FUNCTION of Curecoin - AND MOST OF THE REWARDS - are directed to the folders that ARE THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING CURECOIN.

 Without us FOLDERS, THERE WOULD BE NO CURECOIN AND NO REASON FOR IT.


 This is not to say the work done by the miners is useless, but it is not the focus for Curecoin, it is not why Curecoin exists, and there are ways to not NEED the miners at all that Curecoin hasn't chosen to use (as much as I hate bringing up FoldingCoin, they don't use miners - though I don't class their use of that ripoff Counterparty platform as being a better option - nor does GridCoin use miners though I'm not fond of their particular implimentation of Proof of Stake either).

Several people have volunteered to help out with Curecoin.  Feel free to connect with us at http://slack.curecoin.net:30000 Thanks!

look at these other distributed computing projects

gns
golem
rls

these are hot right now, even grid has started saying they will follow their path to more monetized distributed computing projects hence the rise in gridcoin.

curecoin has had terrible terrible involvement from the devs since inception.

volksholk is mostly found on every other project thread occasionally remembers curecoin
cygnusxi are they actually a developer? not sure what they do

if it is always going to be an altruistic project let's slash the rewards back hard for now. I mean people want to fold for free then let's let them do that but give them some small reward.

Investors in curecoin have been ruined by slack developers who are more interested in other projects than their own and falure to look forward and adapt this project to something more useful for the investors.

Lets follow gridcoin into more monetised distributed computing models they seem to have a better idea of where things are heading.

Leave the free altruistic folding to those that want to do it for free. It would be good to find a balance for investors and those wanting to do some good but really this has not been possible due to devs doing practically nothing for all these years.

This has been a HUGE loss to all that supported this project from the start.

For now I would cut back folding rewards hard and improve the spec of this coin so that it is interesting to investors for other reasons..

Later look into monetising distributed computing power.

The coins tech is basic outdated crap let's look at making that interesting and novel. So that at least investors are interested in it from that perspective then we can slash the cure payouts to folders hard and they will still do ok out of it financially.

No one, much less the whole community, needs to spend that much time trying to convince an exchange to stay a delisting. The fact that they are delisting a "cause coin" is, in fact, representative of the fact that they have already made up their mind and pages of a forum thread aren't going to matter

Seems you can't grasp the difference either.
There are less than 20 people than mine CureCoin on a regular weekly basis (even less that do it on a daily basis).
99.98% of the people that mine (which is everyone that mines except me and 1 other person) mine here: http://cure.cryptopools.com/index.php?page=statistics&action=pool

"Reality check" - Mining, which is a POW (and not POS) version of adding to the Curecoin blockchain, is not folding.


Edit: For clarity, I refer you to the damn OP and the 3 screens dedicated to explaining the difference...
[emphasis added]

 Reality check - there are HUNDREDS of folks doing folding on Team Curecoin, not "less than 20"

 There are something like 20 of us AMONG THE TOP 50 "24 HOUR AVERAGE" FOLDERS ALONE as a general rule.

 http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/individual_list.php?s=&srt=1


 IMO CureCoin would be better off if we could get the Gates foundation interested in buying CureCoin (and probably FoldingCoin as well), as both would promote getting more hardware pointed at a proven "find new drugs to cure/treat diseases" project which would be at least somewhat in line with the stated objectives of that particular foundation.

 "Big Pharma" isn't who's backing Standford's F@H efforts.