i'm against having CC1, SigmaX and CC1 holder only getting small portion and waiting for it forever in a slow distribution (we already waited for 2 years)
besides SigmaX and CC1 might devalue each other because they will need to share same marketcap
and then CC2 will devalue CC1 and SigmaX
we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2) ?
and about open source. of course it must be open source even if someone fork it...
try to fork BTC, ETH, DASH.. you will probably not have their success with a fork
if someone want to fork it even gives your software more power. when its so good that other developers are using it
about 'boat missing' in every coin/asset/share/stock/whatever if not buying/mining when the price is low... it mean missing the train
and CURE is cheap for a long time
for any new curecoin coin related i would want 1:1 swap/snapshot... and upon release, without delay.. again we wait forever already and don't want to wait another forever
I haven't followed for a long time cure coin and to be honest I don't know where you guys stand. I just wanted to mention that because I really like the idea of Cure coin and I believe it is actually one of the few coins worth wasting electricity to mine if you guys for some reason decide to move from POW to POS I would consider moving to DPOS instead (Delegate Proof of Stake) and move your chain to Bitshares.
I think curecoin can benefit in many ways from integrating bitshares technology. Much less cost, more benefits, faster transactions. Maybe consider issuing a derivative asset in the bitshares blockchain such as bitCurecoin..Or if you want to raise funds for your project, IPO,ICO etc using bitshares is an easy and effective way.Just present your idea and plan in bitsharestalk forum, issue an User asset coin and ask for funding.You may be surprised by the positive responses..
Just some thoughts...
FLDC is doing something similar, but on Counterparty platform
(without any ICO for now...)
To clarify a few items: CC1 and CC2 coins are equivalent, neither network will be in any form of competition with the other, CC2 is just an extremely-involved hard-fork, and CC1 converts (and is burned in the process) to CC2.
So there are really two coins we are talking about: Curecoin and SigmaX. There shouldn't be a significant overlap between the two considering markets, since SigmaX is designed to close the hole in the market that CC2 leaves behind (decentralized PoW-based solution).
For CC2, all CC1 coins will be (at the holder's leisure) available for immediate, 1:1 conversion to CC2. The SigmaX idea is that, regardless of whether they are still holding coins on CC1 or have moved to CC2, they would receive SigmaX for holding their Curecoin on a weekly (?) basis for the payout period.
I agree--Ideally we'd just launch CC2, and have that be that. But since it isn't difficult work for someone to fork CC2 to create a PoW-based blockchain, and since there is market incentive to do so, it seems to be in Curecoin's best interest to be the provider of that inevitable PoW blockchain.
we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2)
I completely agree. I'm reading last two pages of this thread and still does not understanding why do we need a new cryptocurrency? I know everyone want get some bonus when he is just holding curecoin but I strongly doubt that it is worth doing some SigmaX.
It basically comes down to this: There's a fairly large portion of the cryptocurrency community who don't believe in the security assurances of a certificate blockchain, so they'll want a PoW-based chain. CC2 brings enough improvements and new technology that there's incentives for people to fork CC2, remove certificates, and add traditional PoW. Since someone will eventually do it, we figure that the Curecoin ecosystem mind as well benefit from it by creating the PoW-chain, giving a large portion of it to Curecoin holders, and using it to incentivize Curecoin folding for the distribution period.
Ideally we would just have Curecoin 2.0, but there's no way to "lock down" the code (especially in the spirit of open-source, trustworthy software), and the market incentives for a quantum-resistant, mini-blockchain PoW crypto would cause someone to make their own, at which point the Curecoin ecosystem doesn't benefit at all.
Glad to see this project is still alive and Curecoin 2.0 is on its way.
I see the reasoning behind the SigmaX, and just wanted to say (even though I don't own 10% of the Cure coins or anything) I think you should go ahead with it, and just give some % of it (maybe 10%-ish) to the people folding. It should be some % that is small enough that it doesn't turn people away/make someone fork it anyway, but still add incentive to/reward folders. And rather than do some large premine (which might also cause disinterest/forking), just give the folders their share as the new SigmaX is created/mined.
It should definitely not take away from GPU power to mine the SigmaX (obviously), but if it takes CPU power I don't see that as a big deal. (Isn't all the folding done on GPUs? Or can some of the WUs only be done by CPUs for some reason?) And it would probably be good to avoid ASIC mining
if you can since they are so wasteful and not to mention inaccessible to average joe, but I don't know what options would be left if you take away GPUs and possibly CPUs.
Just my 2 million satoshis. Take it for what you will.
Thanks! This is basically where we are at--large giveaway of SigmaX to Curecoin holders from some time-release mechanism (either time-locked transactions or a block subsidy system). Balancing the premine percentage is certainly important--too much and we turn the PoW crowd away to their own solution, too small and there's no reason to even develop SigmaX because it doesn't benefit the Curecoin ecosystem. We're entertaining the idea of a 1:1 payout for all circulating Curecoins, currently.
CPU power is a tough cookie to crack in such a way that GPUs aren't useful too. A lot of GPU-resistant hashing algorithms are memory-hard, but as GPUs evolve with faster RAM, this gap closes. As well, the best GPU-resistant algorithms I've seen essentially put GPUs and CPUs on equal computational footing, which results in people still using GPUs to mine (primary example: cryptonight). ASICs aren't great either... centralization, high-electrical usage, high cost-of-entry.
The only option we are left with without GPUs, CPUs, and ASICs would be hard-drive based mining (such as BURST), which is certainly a viable option.
wonder what time scale we're talking about now?
Initial release of SigmaX testnet (using CPU-bound SHA-256 initially) in the next 24 hours. Based on how that performs, we'll set a timeline for tidying up the shared code between the two currencies, and subsequent launch of cc2.0.
