Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 55. (Read 696267 times)

This is not normal. i7-4770 with six threads give me 14175 PPD. Show us some screenshots with your FAH@home configuration.

Man, folding with a CPU is the worst. With an i5 I got only 50 PPD, is that normal?

I found there's an android protein folding application https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sonymobile.androidapp.gridcomputing&hl=en
Unfortunately you cannot set your identity/team/passkey in the app and generate curecoin, perhaps we should e-mail the developer to add that capability: [email protected]

The massive recent "new folders" fueled PPD increase is harder on income generation than the Curecoin drop from it's spikes.

 On the other hand, without the spikes we probably wouldn't HAVE the massive PPD increase.

I don't know about you guys, but I am getting wrecked on this price drop. Damn you bitcoin!

Darval - it might be better to ask that question over on the Curecoin forum.

https://www.curecoin.net/forum/index.php

Unfortunately I can't help you with anything linux

Many donors today show "0" points. Perhaps the new coin?

Hey everyone,
I am a long time folder (12 years) and a pretty long time curecoin fan.  I had originally been holding coins in my bittrex wallet but earlier this year moved to hosting my own wallet on one of my linux servers.  I am trying to understand a few things about the curecoin daemon so hopefully someone can help out.

First off, my current wallet:
Part of what I am trying to understand is how many coins I actually have.  If I do this:
It shows a different number for the default account.  But if I do this:
Which balance is accurate?  Is this two different accounts? 
And I assume this is just showing incoming coins and doesn't count the coins spent:

I started down this path because I thought I had the coins help long enough to start seeing PoS minting but that doesn't appear to be happening although I certainly have some coins I have held for more than 30 days.

Anyway, if someone familiar with how this is supposed to work, I would appreciate some help.

Thanks!

Thanks for the update.

Hey everyone, so that update I was talking about with our security technology:

We announced at Money 20/20 (one of the world's largest financial technology conferences) under the name VeriBlock, and we allow any blockchain to secure itself with the security of Bitcoin. Still can't say how we do it since we're semi-stealth, but here's what we're not:
-Not merged-mining
-Not existing on the Bitcoin blockchain itself

Currently two solutions exist to inherit security from Bitcoin:
Merged Mining requires that you get miners on board, and it's a sort of "fake" security, in that the opportunity cost for Bitcoin miners to attack you is very low--they can still mine Bitcoin while attacking your merge-mined chain. Additionally, you don't get the full security of Bitcoin, only the percentage of mining power you can convince to actually set up the process. It's not scalable for a lot of blockchains, because Bitcoin miners don't want to track a lot of other, lower-value blockchains to perform merged-mining anyhow.

Embedded Blockchains are embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain itself. Using the blockchain essentially requires using a modified version of the Bitcoin client which also understands the seemingly-arbitrary data embedded in Bitcoin. It's secure, but incredibly expensive to do, and also not particularly scalable (you generally end up making a Bitcoin transaction whenever you create a transaction on the embedded blockchain, because the Bitcoin blockchain needs to have data written to it).

So, we aren't those. We don't have the opportunity-cost issues of merged-mining, we don't have the scalability problems of merged-mining and embedded blockchains. We don't require Bitcoin miners to be aware or involved at all. That's a taste of what's to come.

Thank you both for answers.
Will test it with GTX970 and GTX1070.

core speed is vastly more important. memory speed makes virtually no difference. In fact you are often better off reducing memory speed. The reason being that the decrease in heat and power can usually help with a bigger increase on the core.

I've been folding on gpu's since the the gpu1 client running on the radeon x1800xt, and I've used almost every generation of gpu since. Memory speed has never been significant to performance.

Might depend on the card, my 1070s seem to need a bit of both for best results but more CPU than MEM.

Hi Quint,
don't you know, what's more important for folding, gpucore, or gpumem?
cheers

Can't trust that spreadsheet.

 The GTX 1070 IS NOT a consistent 675k PPD performer, more like 600k based on my FARM of them (mix of Gigabyte and EVGA models at this point).
 150 watts is ALSO not right - more like 170 with the overclocking needed to get *TO* 600k PPD fairly consistantly, per Nvidia-SMI (and backed up reasonably closely by watttmeter readings).
 They CAN be found in a few cases for $400 (usually higher for most but not by a lot, and NewEgg USUALLY has at least one mid-to-high end version on sale for $399).

 Makes me wonder if ANY of the numbers in that spreadsheet for PPD or watts can be trusted, but I can't speak to THOSE from significant personal experience.

Here is an excellent PPD/$/watt gpu comparison:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v5gXral3BcFOoXs5n1M6l_Uo3pZpQYogn6gVlxRPnz0/edit#gid=0

Thanks QuintLeo. Good to know that the 1070 is a good folder, I was considering getting that if I were to get a gaming rig.

 It depends on the GPU.

 Given my mixed farm, I refigure the numbers fairly frequently, most recently last night.

 For many GPUs, especially ALL AMD GPUs, even with "merge folding" it is still more profitable to mine Ethereum.

 For pre-9xx series NVidia GPUs specifically including the 750 Ti, merge folding is not very good at all but most of those cards aren't good Ethereum miners either. The 750 TI seems to be best off right now as an XMR (Monero) miner, pre-Maxwell NVidia cards are probably best to sell off to help pay for an upgrade to something much more recent and efficient in the same or lower power-consumption range (or a bit more if you have excess PS capasity).

 For 9xx series NVidia GPUs, it depends - lower end ones like the 960 and down (and probably the 970 but I don't have any of those so I didn't figure the details) are ALSO more profitable on mining Ethereum - but it's getting fairly close, 'till the Foldcoin having in a bit less than 2 months looks like it will possibly put Ethereum firmly in the lead again for a while.

 For the 980/980ti and Maxwell Titan, merge folding wins, but mostly because those cards aren't very good at Ethereum mining compared to their FAH PPD production.
 The one up side is that the 980 and 980ti have dropped in price on used cards to the same ballpark or sometimes less than a 1070 new costs, while they are competative on PPD abet at rather higher power consumption (980 seems to be a bit lower than the 1070 on long-term PPD, 980ti is a little better).

 The 1060 3GB and 6GB are a question mark, but overall they're not all that good of folders while they're also not all that good at Ethereum and they should probably be avoided entirely in favor of either the 1070 or the AMD RX series based on the numbers I've seen reported for them so far. Note that I don't personally own any of these cards.

 The 1070, 1080, and Titan X Pascal are better off merge folding. The Titan X Pascal in particular is a VERY impressive folder, but the cost makes it a fair bit less efficient overall than the 1070 and 1080 on a PPD/$ basis.



 This all can easily change in a day if there is a major price movement on any of the respective coins, or in month as more GPU power gets directed at the various coins.

 Merge folding profitability has dropped by almost HALF in the last month alone as the huge surge of Curecoin/merge folders have moved into it after the price jump, that surge has now dropped profitability to about a tossup with where the profitability was at in the week before the price kicked up over 3 cents per CureCoin. It is set to drop by about a quarter instantly at the Foldcoin halfing point in appx. 55 days from now.

 In that same timeframe, Ethereum hashrate has kicked up enough to drop Ethereum earned by about a third for a given card while Ethereum price has been pretty much flat thus dropping the profitability by over a third.


 All of this is also very depending on your electric cost - I have VERY VERY cheap electric where I live now, if your electric is more expensive *ALL* of the profitability numbers get worse than what I see out of a given card.

 

^ Nice. According to this article http://jasondrowley.com/2015/12/04/the-bitcoin-network-is-11000x-faster-than-the-top-500-supercomputers-combined/
and Folding@Home's website, Folding@Home's entire computing power is at 99 petaflops whereas bitcoin is 7 million petaflops. I guess that's including ASICs, but wow. Long way to go for this coin.

I wonder what % the CureCoin folders are contributing to that 99 petaflop stat.

You would have to create a new name with a counter party bitcoin address. Something like  name_ALL_btc address

Here is a video for a how to. Cut me some slack this was the first time i've ever attempted something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8hUyJDRDwc

If you're already Folding at Home for Curecoin, how do you adjust your software config file to add Foldingcoin as well?