Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!
It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!
They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.
I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...
I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard
you made a good point...
will be fair if there will be bigger amount given to Curecoiners (instead of <%1... >1000% of yearly mining), like ethereum did with the pre-sale, distributed amount of coins which would take years to mine.
curecoin is not expensive (not far from ATL right now), so a bigger share for folders is fair.
another thing that worries me: if the new coin is GPU mineable, it might take away power from folding@home
would be better to switch directly to CC2.0 on a testnet, and then CC2.0 mainnet. and don't do the POW SigmaX at all
At this point, it looks like SigmaX, if released, will have a significant portion (around 50%?) distributed to folders. Probably on some form of time-release schedule.
The GPU mining could take power away from actual research. Perhaps we could use traditional SHA-256 instead, so that only ASICs, which aren't capable of doing any useful scientific calculations, are used for the network's security.
I think if you allow asic u restrict the distribution and would certainly need to consider splitting the pow into channels so that its viable to use cpu/gpu and asic. And I certainly would steer away from 50% premine in favor of block subsidy paid weekly perhaps to a time locked address. Now this would in effect widen the distribution across folders & miners, while I can certainly see that some might shift away from folding to get some SigmaX you have less incentive to do so when you can earn CC and SigmaX by folding. Even if the block subsidy is 50% its not a premine more of a "founders fee" if you will.
Edit: It may also pay to incentivize folders further, perhaps it could be done by splitting the block subsidy to pay some portion to folders, for example 40% to Curecoin holders 10% to folders. It could be distributed to the folders via the CC folding pool. Similarly it might be possible to use CC2.0 as a means of getting miners interested in folding or at least CC in general by having a small block subsidy of CC2.0 (1-2%?) paid out to SigmaX holders. This way both coins would be tied together and holders in one coin can gather into both economies but with the balance in the favor of CC long term supporters but in such a way that no one is left out because of the opportunity over time to become a supporter simply by owning some of either currency. If subsidy was paid daily/weekly it would certainly help stimulate activity on the blockchain which would be perfect for testing out how the new software performs.
At this point the predominant idea seems to be some form of subsidy or time-locked coins paid out to holders of Curecoin, rather than a lump sum at the beginning. As such, for the entire distribution period, folding to get Curecoin would also earn SigmaX, because the folding payouts would be eligible for payouts of SigmaX.
Making SigmaX pure SHA-256D shouldn't (at least, in the first year or whatever the distribution period is) significantly restrict distribution, because people can still fold with GPUs to earn Curecoin, which in turn pays out SigmaX weekly.
Paying out some cc2.0 coins to SigmaX folders is an interesting idea. It'd probably be for a fairly short period of time, since we don't want to have control over the distribution of either currency after the dispersion period.
I agree absolutely with Vorksholk that the second coin in the form of SigmaX, without certificates is absolutely essential to slow down the certain proliferation after posting the code to Github. Is it possible technically to let people copy the new coin, but first code in permanently that in order to use their copy, they have to have a SigmaX or CC 2 wallet, and burn a small amount of SigmaX or CC 2 every time they utilize a certain amount of their new coin? This would let many people make their own copies, but would pay a small rent to SigmaX or CC 2 by reducing the outstanding balances of SigmaX or CC2. I could see a small government making, say, ParaguayCoin from CC2, then issue its own certificates, similar to how the FAH could utilize it, but has not decided to yet. This would give the government control over its own new coin minting, but have the advantage of all the great tech from CC 2 without the initial work. Of course the burning of SigmaX or CC2 from use of the newly created coins would help support or propel its value.
There are a lot of ideas flying, and I think that the discussion is healthy, overall. My basic hope is to attempt to have CC 2 and SigmaX mimic the best societies economically, as far as possible. This proposal is that both CC 2 and SigmaX be set up the same way, as outlined below. In my view, a perfect coin might have characteristics that look something like this, and has zero pre-mine:
A. Proof of Human Work and Ongoing Expenses for the Development Team: Reward the developer team, which is composed of software developers, marketers, web design, occasional professional services, and people to promote and coordinate integration into the thousands of software applications already out there. Everything that might be on the income and expense statement of a typical software firm has to be covered by this, given enough value for the new coins. Bitcoin would have avoided many of its current problems with this in place from the beginning. This team contributes technical and human expertise, but does not necessarily bring investment or capital. Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.
B. Proof of Work: Reward a wide variety of mining types if possible, technically. ASICs, GPUs, and CPUs and possibly hard drive space and network bandwidth all in equal measure. The idea here is to keep everyone off balance, so that a low cost manufacturer of one technology or cheap electricity does not have a great advantage over people with other technologies. The POW people bring capital and some technical skills. Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.
C. Proof of Stake: Reward the purchase of coins in a modest way to help secure the network, so that one has to buy a lot of coins if one is going to try to make major changes to the network. The POS people bring primarily capital to the equation. Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.
D. Proof of Support: Reward the people who own CC 1 as of the snapshot date. People have been buying, folding, or ASIC securing the network and the devs for 2 years now. Those who have coins supported the development team in numerous ways. They should be rewarded for their risk, encouragement, and for not selling their CC 1. The Proof of Support people brought capital, support, faith, ideas, feedback, risk tolerance, and obtained their CC 1 coins in a variety of ways. Mining proposed: 40% for first 2 years, nothing after two years.
Please notice that in this proposal, the CC 1 holders and the POW miners get less than orginally proposed, but the dev team gets a lot more, and POS is now in the equation. I am convinced that the dev team should be well-compensated, but am more flexible about the ratios between POW versus POS. Keep in mind that POS uses petty amounts of electricity, while POW uses large amounts.
Unfortunately, coding something into the source code that requires a burn of SigmaX or Curecoin for the operation of their network is impossible--a programmer can just alter the source code.
A 20%+ development fund will certainly turn users away--we'll probably do no development fund on SigmaX, and a few percent subsidy on cc2.0. Using hard drive space as a mining mechanism in SigmaX is certainly interesting--perhaps we could follow in the footsteps of BURST in the PoW design. We are leaning away from CPU/GPU mining on SigmaX since we believe those are better utilized for folding on cc2.0, although ASIC-dominated networks do seem more centralized since the barrier to entry is higher. Using hard drives and ASICs seems to alleviate that issue somewhat.
SigmaX probably won't have PoS (or will have a neutered version of PoS, to alleviate general concerns about security holes in PoS systems). Curecoin 2.0 will have the neutered PoS system, which doesn't involve stake weight, and fits into a "jigsaw" blockchain to make network forks using PoS impossible. As for the mintage, we'll probably go fairly low (1-3% yearly interest), since larger interest rates punish users who actively spend and accept the token (by making it deflationary), and the interest rate is cumulative, which results in PoS overshadowing other mintage mechanisms if not carefully planned in the long run.
For your proof of support, that's almost exactly the current plan for SigmaX, except that the snapshot will be weekly, so every week for a year or so, we'll pay out some amount of SigmaX (if we did a year distribution, it would be 1/52 of the total payout weekly) to holders of Curecoin based on their current balance. This serves a few purposes: users can fold with CPUs/GPUs for the first year and still receive SigmaX for their work (earn Curecoin directly, which then earns SigmaX weekly), and encourages users to invest in Curecoin if they want SigmaX. We might do a hybrid solution, which does a decently large payout based on a snapshot block of cc1.0 before SigmaX launches, and then smaller weekly payouts thereafter. The total amount paid out over that distribution period will be about 40-50% of the SigmaX network's eventual float. Any input on this?
For the Curecoin PoS, we might do a decaying PoS rate, so that during the first year, the interest rate is x%, then the year after is 2/3x%, etc. to kickstart PoS, but ensure that it doesn't overshadow other mintage methods in the long-run, since it is cumulative.
If the point of SigmaX is to provide a more decentralized form of CC2.0 doesn't making a premine any greater than 1-2% contradict this goal? I would be more in favor of a block subsidy to be paid over the life of the coin, this could have the added bonus of encouraging ppl to buy CC to get SigmaX from snapshots. This would also avoid the centralized nature of a larger upfront premine. Also for SigmaX to be an effective test bed for CC2.0 it does need to be an active blockchain I fear any large premine would scare away potential users thus deducting further from the intention that SigmaX be an effective test bed.
Also I would like to know if the devs intend to ensure that the CC1.0 premine for folders isn't eligible for any initial conversion towards SigmaX.
That was certainly our initial reason for the 1% premine idea. If we go for a 50% premine or similar, it would interfere with a more "pure" distribution model, but the network's security is still decentralized, since all blocks are PoW. If we do a large premine/distribution to Curecoin holders, then it would have to be time-released to avoid flooding the initial supply. Whether that means coins are paid out to addresses but "frozen" until a certain block, or a block subsidy is aggregated and paid out weekly, there's a few options. As you point out, this would add additional demand for Curecoin, since people would be receiving SigmaX for holding it, which is certainly supportive of the Curecoin ecosystem.
The hope with the large payout to Curecoin holders is that it can be done transparently (so people won't feel they "missed the boat," since the idea will be announced in advance, and they can buy Curecoin if they want to get SigmaX that way), and that the continual security of the network doesn't depend on the distribution, since it is pure PoW. For sure, it isn't perfect by any means.
The only coins eligible for the "conversion" (trying to find a better word, since people keep their Curecoin) are ones that have been paid out to folders, ones paid out to traditional miners through the normal block reward, and dev funds that have already been paid out. None of the premine that hasn't been paid out to folders will be eligible for conversion. So basically any coins that end users have earned will be eligible, none of the cold storage premine (remaining dev funds + pending folding rewards) will be eligible. Dev funds that have already been paid out (according to the initial mintage schedule) are a grey area. Perhaps those could be converted and reserved for bounties and the like.
Missed the boat? they should have been here with us mining, folding and buying for 2 years. SigmaX is from curecoin so there is no missing the boat about it really. Shame it can't be closed source. I mean if you spend 2 years coding and working for someone just to press copy and paste that's too bad. A lot of communities are closed source now until they get a few versions ahead. Fuseleer is a Java guru isn't he? can he not close it up for us for now ? or make it hard to reverse engineer it. I never understood why more people didn't get on board with this project anyway.
It is unfortunate that years of code can be copied and pasted, but in general the community follows the original developers unless they have a good reason not to (like a fork that offers decentralized PoW). The Ethereum forks aren't getting much attention despite the recent explosion in Ethereum, since Ethereum has the first mover advantage, and also has the development expertise behind it. Personally I believe that if we create both Curecoin 2.0 and SigmaX, we've got most of the community's desires covered, so there isn't a large spot for a fork to capitalize on, since both those who believe in the research-based PoW and those who only believe in decentralized PoW both have an option.
Totally agree about the "missed boat"--and those who weren't aware of Curecoin before can fold some now and throughout the distribution period to get SigmaX as well, which would benefit the Curecoin ecosystem
We could remove the existing code from Github and only release it upon actual launch, and there's also ways to obfuscate code to make reverse-engineering harder, but neither are really in the spirit of the open-source cryptocurrency community, and obfuscating just makes the job harder. There's also advantages to having easily-reversable code--people with knowledge of Java can easily verify that executables we provide are safe. The problem about a future decentralized-PoW fork is mainly a symptom of a larger issue--that there's a large open spot in the market for that currency that Curecoin just doesn't cover. By providing both Curecoin 2.0 and SigmaX, I think we reasonably close in on both sides of the market, so forks would have to do something more innovative and beneficial to the community to succeed, which gets back to the fundamentals of open source.
And to top it off, Java is ridiculously easy to reverse engineer. Which for open-source projects is great since people can open the compiled binaries and verify that nothing's wrong with them, but would make closed-source even harder.