Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 56. (Read 696267 times)

Aside from mining, the most popular way to be rewarded curecoin is by folding proteins with Stanford University's protein folding distributed computing project software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home , which has a lot of benefits for humanity aside from medical science. You can watch this kind of boring Ted Talk if you're really curious about its benefits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm-3kovWpNQ&feature=youtu.be&t=636 (I skipped the video URL to 10:36 to where it really gets interesting).
Here is a list of diseases that occur due to protein misfolding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteopathy

With protein folding - just like mining cryptocurrencies - the stronger your GPU is the more curecoin you are rewarded as it is directly proportional to the amount of scientific research you are contributing.

At its current total combined computing power, curecoin is the most powerful protein folding "team" in any given 24 hours, by nearly double. As seen here: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=
Currently there are only around 640 "curecoin folders", which makes it even more interesting.

The idea of CureCoin is to detract the "wasteful" amount of resources being spent on mining the useless puzzles of other cryptocurrencies for profit, at the cost of, well, centralization. Currently, curecoin is premined and being rewarded (with transparency) according to the stats that Stanford University's reports, all of which is being automated.

CureCoin 2.0 is in the works to make this centralization more trust-worthy, I suppose. Everyone will able to convert their curecoin to curecoin 2.0 when the time comes.

Fun Fact: You can also configure you folding@home client to be rewarded in both CureCoin and FoldingCoin http://foldingcoin.net/ (another cryptocurrency with the same ideals) simultaneously, without lowering your reward for the other. It is the consensus of this thread that "merge folding" in this way is currently the most profitable thing to put your GPUs toward (at the current price exchange).

So what exactly is the premise behind curecoin? Like are they using it to help find cures for diseases? I love the coin I'm just wondering what the deal is behind it Cheers

Cool man. You're right, forget about the logo right now. Lowest priority. Thanks for the response.

Per Cygnusxi: "I've been on this forum being honest with people for years. Sure honesty is crap in a trust less world unless you are willing to take that chance on what many agree is still one of the best alts around. The fact that we have stayed in the top 100 on market cap for over 2 years should speak for itself."

I, for one, really appreciate the apparent honesty and relative transparency of the Curecoin team.  I also appreciate that there are almost never any technical glitches in the CC 1.0 network and wallet. 

Regarding Market Cap, I am afraid that I have contributed to it not reaching its potential.  See, I have kept my coins on exchanges, and the exchanges probably get the Proof of Stake "interest" on them, then sell those coins earned.  I currently leave my coins on exchanges because I trust the exchanges more than I trust my own ability to secure the coins, even though I am well aware of the significant risks of another Mt. Gox/Mintpal wiping out my coins on Bittrex and Poloniex.  If someone could come up with a recipe for a low-tech person like myself to get them off of the exchange, it would be greatly appreciated.  I am open to both a paper wallet and to securing the computer.  Perhaps the recipe or manual could reside on Google Docs or other place accessible to the public. 

My particulars are as follows: I have two types of computers, one is Windows 2012 R2 servers with RDP access, and one is a Windows 10 laptop that is not used as a server.  I would appreciate a list of steps to protect the laptop, and, if possible, the additional steps required to protect the servers.

My hope is that someone other than the CC devs could produce these steps initially as I know that they are already doing a lot of volunteer work for the coins, and that the CC devs might be willing to "bless" the solution(s) presented.

Now I'm certainly not an expert in the world of cryptocurency, not even a particularly interested amateur, and it is very much my own opinion - but it seems to me that most crypto enthusiasts are obsessed with the idea of decentralisation.

I understand that is one of the cornerstones of Bitcoin - but so what? When you actually look at what Curecoin has achieved and what it represents, and you look at Stanfords record on security and robustness - it's clear that the Curecoin ecosystem is secure, robust, fair, viable, and most importantly contributes to the understanding and development of real science and medicine.

PM wuffy68 , he has a logo that is exactly as you seem to describe. I can't spend too much time debating about the logo.. FifthGB may also be able to jump into the logo discussion but if curecoin is going to excel, the developers need to pay attention to anything but the logo. Please contact my team mates if you feel like you can contribute to the logo.

There is a folding@home competition that will be starting soon (created by myself). Stay tuned.. it will be a lot more exciting than any logo as world records in computational research are not just going to be broken but redefined completely. This is something no other coin can claim with maybe the exception of Prime coin , but there is the obvious difference in what you achieve on the 2 different platforms.
Cheers and fold on!

That's a good point, we all should recognize that there will always be a single point of failure/centralization with curecoin given that it at all relies on Stanford's provided data in the first place.

As for the new logo, I have to agree it is shiet.  I actually prefer the old coin logo, but perhaps just replace the kanji with a globe that looks somewhat like the United Nations symbol (but not exactly like the United Nations symbol, because today it seems like curecoin could outlive the UN ).

All the other coins represent greed, but what CureCoin should represent is that:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/harblimgs/ufc38-remedios-sudo.png

this is the solution for that https://www.curecoin.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3875 , easy to do, make sure you back up your wallet.dat first

0. backup wallet
1. try to run with -salvagewallet

The -rescan option didn't do anything.
Actually the old transactions I see in the "Recent Transactions" area are the 3 orphan ones from the "Transactions" tab.
I'll try the export wallet to see if it helps.

Well, you should see our opinions as real help. It gives you different insights from different vantage points on different topics. Then you can try to make the best decision...


Honesty is a great thing and I guess a bunch of Curecoin team members have a scientific/engineering background so we value it. But my feeling is that non-philantropic investors (i.e. sharks) who might be willing to put a lot of money (I mean millions and more) in a cryptocurrency (to make more money) will probably choose one that does not rely on honesty... And since their investment would significantly increase the coin's market cap and value and bring more people to folding, we should address in advance any reluctance they may have so they choose us!

As I recall the community voted for a purple teddy bear and some other things just as lame. Also I'd glady accept help but most "community members" act more like spectators with lots of opinions and offer zero real help.

Find me a logo that resonates with everyone else on the forum and I'll use it.

As far as centralization. Did btc not have an epic battle over 2mb blocks? Did ethereum spilt into 2 coins proving that they are so centralized they will go against contracts written in their own code? Decentralization is an illusion these developers want you to believe. Nothing can ever be completely decentralized because software has humans that write it and do things like fork ethereum into 2 chains showing the largest act of centralization power ever. Curecoin stuck to its coin parameters without human induced forks.

Curecoin is serving its purpose and we are about to break the world record for dcn computing once again. Plenty of people believe in this project and with good cause. I've been on this forum being honest with people for years. Sure honesty is crap in a trust less world unless you are willing to take that chance on what many agree is still one of the best alts around. The fact that we have stayed in the top 100 on market cap for over 2 years should speak for itself. So many "perfectly decentralized" coins have died while curecoin continues to move waves in the scientific community.

Looks like some kind of prototype logo design for the original iMac.  A bit dated.  But honestly I wasn't a big fan of the original logo either.

Some say cure is too centralized.  In the past any discussion about an improved logo was ignored or perhaps overlooked.  If I recall correctly, a contest was held for a new logo and a winner was never chosen.

Have you considered allowing community designers to bring cure's look into the present?  Or will the centralization continue from every aspect, down to the logo and look of the coin?

Thanks for your consideration. 

In the same way as on Bitcoin, the network generates the 50BTC when a block is found and attributes it to who solved the block, couldn't we have "the curecoin network" (I guess the PoW client) proportionally distribute the 52CC to folders based on the last day stats given by F@H (and have the fairness of this checked during the confirmation process)?


That's cool. Yet can't you add a decentralized automatic checking of the fact that the university hasn't given itself more Curecoin than expected? The idea is that if we want trust from investors we need to have a system that self-checks itself and is secure by itself, not that rests upon honesty and goodwill of any parties of it.

I'm just glad things are moving forward. I feel good about this one. Keep it guys!

We're certainly open to ideas if anyone can think of a way to enable universities and other research institutes to still create work for which miners are rewarded without involving certificates (or a central service which just holds Curecoin and pays it out).

The announcement on Tuesday will clarify why a certificate blockchain isn't a problem for network security (double-spends, blockchain forking, etc.) though The main issue with the certificate blockchain is simply a university being able to give themselves more Curecoin than they should be getting--it doesn't let them attack the consensus of the network to any concerning degree with the technology we're working on.

Thanks for your answer and the news!!

While I understand that you wanted to remove SHA256D PoW from CC2.0 because it is a waste of electricity, adding a third party in the loop (the certification authorities, who in the case of F@H we are not even sure are willing to participate, even though the recent results of Curecoin team might help convincing them) goes against the concept of decentralization which is one of the pillars of the success of blockchain technology and Bitcoin.

If we want to replace Bitcoin someday, we need the trust of investors so they get ready to buy lots of M$ of Curecoin. And for that we should be as decentralized as possible and not have vulnerabilities Bitcoin doesn't have (a third party is a potential vulnerability and even if the problems an outside hacker or an insider at Stanford might create could be a posteriori corrected in the blockchain it would create hassle, would make bad publicity for the coin and make its value drop...).


Haha, nice teaser!! On Tuesday we're going to break the record of people reading this topic!

The new emblem reminds me too much of Worldcoin, the most failed coin of all time that was previously at the top 5 marketcap (now 95th).
http://puu.sh/rS76M/05de46e642.png

We're doomed.

edit: sorry cygnusxi, didn't see your epic post above. We're not doomed.

Let me preface this by saying these are really good debates to have--and if you have specific ideas to address some of the concerns (namely certificates and WU validation of a dynamic WU system), we'd love to hear and discuss them. Here's how we're currently seeing these issues:

Currently, the certificate system looks like the best way to be able to validate peoples' contributions to scientific computation networks. Bitcoin works because PoW uses SHA-256D which everyone can validate--they know the exact requirements and validation procedure for any PoW. Since the very nature of scientific computing is large workloads which continually evolve and change format (not everyone is folding the same molecule in the same way--in fact, aside from redundancy, no one is), this means of decentralized work validation isn't possible. It's really a tradeoff--technically it's possible to create a PoW based on validating a computation related to simulating a single molecular system, but then it's unusable as a means of scientific research because research teams can't change the molecule, can't change what about it is being simulated, etc. They also can't improve the software (aside from optimizing the software to produce the same results faster), and the workloads would have to be unimaginably small to be practical PoW targets (because everyone needs to recompute them). It's also a DDoS vulnerability to the network, because people could pretend to mine a ton of blocks with bogus WUs, and everyone would have to recompute the entire WU to see that it's false. With Bitcoin it's nanoseconds to compute a double-SHA256 hash. With even a small molecular simulation it's on the scale of seconds to minutes, which means someone could submit a few bogus blocks to the network, and the entire network would spend an hour frozen while it reprocesses every WU just to find out that they weren't valid PoW submissions. We also couldn't have a short blocktime for this reason, because even the slowest full nodes would need to validate blocks much faster than they are transmitted, and making the PoW validation require more than a trivial amount of time requires that the blocktime leaves a large enough window to ensure that peers aren't being "buried" by PoW validations, even ignoring the DDoS factor.

We are considering a pretty fast blocktime--in the range of 1 to 2 minutes. 30s might be a bit short, but our goal is to get it as low as reasonably possible without causing any issues on the network. Anonymous transactions aren't our goal.

As far as motivation, CureCoin is waiting for a technology I'm currently working on to become available that will drastically improve CureCoin's network security. The technology isn't built for CureCoin specifically, but for the entire ecosystem to use, and CureCoin will be one of the first adopters. Update to come very soon (Tuesday) about what exactly the technology is.

Try running -rescan on command line the next time you load your wallet, also there is a method here that will get rid of the gray stake orphan blocks > https://www.curecoin.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3875
If you can post a screen shot(s) I should be able to confirm.


Sounds like a good idea! The increasing network speed sure is cranking out some research. I tell my friends about this "Right now Curecoin is kicking ass on the f@h network in ways only team Curecoin knows how to do   "