Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 75. (Read 696267 times)

I agree 100% POS is not secured enough

I vote for a premine of 40/50% going to current holder of CC (1 to 2 months to claim your coin), 5% for the dev

Tesnet until CC 2.0 is ready and launch at the same time than CC 2.0

Sorry, this is going to be a long post.

Hey everyone, didn't realize there'd be such a backlash to this SigmaX idea. If the Curecoin community doesn't like this idea, we won't do it. That being said, I'd like to make sure everyone understands the goals of SigmaX.

SigmaX is basically a more "pure" rendition of the cc2.0 code. Same core technology (quantum-resistant algorithms, mini-blockchain, virtually-inexistant currency scripting language), without the certificate system. There's a fairly large portion of the cryptocurrency community who have avoided our project on the basis of centralization. In 1.0, the centralization is, of course, the large premine for the folding payout pool. In 2.0, it will be the certificate signature authorities.

We see the benefits as:
Since it is so similar to the 2.0 code, it'll work as a great stress test of some of the currently-untested (in a high-impact environment) technologies we're using. Additionally, it'll be great for testing new features on, before putting them on the 2.0 network after the release of both.
Its more "pure" format lends itself well to mainstream adoption, which would get more attention for the Curecoin project.

It basically boils down to this:
When we release cc2.0, someone's going to fork it and slap a PoW on it. If they do it, the Curecoin community doesn't benefit at all--any press they get revolves around the "great decentralized quantum-resistant blockchain known as xyz," current Curecoin holders won't have any stake in the network, and the Curecoin ecosystem wouldn't be the de-facto go-to quantum chain solution. SigmaX targets the market of people who are uninterested in Curecoin anyway because of its centralization.

We're not doing a premine(other than the one paid out to curecoin holders)/instamine/ICO/IPO/crowdsale/devfund.


You bring up some good points--we don't want to dilute cc2.0 holders, so releasing SigmaX with some time-release premine paid out 1:1 for cc1.0 holders, and then keep the PoW mintage schedule the same as originally planned for cc1.0 might be a good option.

If we end up doing SigmaX, the snapshot block# will be very close to the release (no earlier than block 108000 which will be in about three weeks, and probably later), and will be published as soon as we decide on it. We could also do a time-released premine which pays out on a weekly basis for, say, a year based on current cc1.0/cc2.0 holdings.

The curecoin.net website does need an overhaul for sure.



For your first point, that was our initial thinking, but people's discussion of that diluting cc1.0 holders makes sense too.

As for specifics, we're thinking of roughly a similar mintage schedule to curecoin 1.0/2.0, a block time of 2-3 minutes, a quadratic weighting algorithm for difficulty targeting, and a custom hashing algorithm that'll make treechains easier to implement in the future, if there's interest.

We wanted to avoid people burning Curecoin cause we don't want people leaving the Curecoin ecosystem, but that's a good discussion idea to bring up as well.


As I noted above, it basically boils down to knowing that someone will fork cc2.0 after release, slap PoW on it, and it won't benefit the Curecoin ecosystem at all. SigmaX makes it so that PoW fork is under the Curecoin project, and benefits cc2.0.

As for time, SigmaX is closely related to the cc2.0 code, so most of the codebase for both is developed together. SigmaX is basically cc2.0 minus a few features (folding certificates, PoS).

Your vote has been counted though, if the community is against this idea, we're not going to pursue it.


If we do SigmaX, the snapshot will be after block 108000 (about three weeks away), and will be announced as soon as we decide on it.

The last thing we're trying to do is dilute the curecoin ecosystem--the logic is that, after release, cc2.0 will be forked and slapped with PoW, and that won't benefit Curecoin at all, since it's not the same development team, and Curecoin owners wouldn't have any stake in that 3rd party fork. So instead, we can create that fork, give Curecoin owners stake in the new network, and use it as a high-impact testing environment for cc2.0 updates.


Both coins would be largely based on the same codebase, so there's not much overhead (on the programming side, at least) to maintaining both.

100% PoS is still heavily criticized, and has significant security flaws. However, if people think a 1:1 premine of SigmaX paid out to current Curecoin holders and then a PoW schedule that models original 1.0 mintage schedule would be a good solution, it's certainly on the table.

The motto of Curecoin is certainly that PoW is a waste of resources, both energy and equipment. That being said, PoW does serve one very legitimate purpose--the ultimate decentralized security. And while I (and the Curecoin community) believe that a blockchain can function perfectly fine using a certificate system which distributes network control to trusted public universities, there are many people in the community that demand PoW-based networks for a variety of use cases.

In summary, SigmaX aims to provide a PoW-secured quantum-computer-resistant blockchain. After cc2.0 launches, it's only a matter of time until a 3rd party forks it to a pure PoW system. SigmaX does that preemptively, and gives Curecoin holders stake in the PoW fork of the project they've supported. Additionally, since it would be a product of the Curecoin development team, any press or attention SigmaX gets will spill over to Curecoin. After the launch of both coins, SigmaX would be used for final testing of features, to act as a testing buffer in front of cc2.0. SigmaX targets a different part of the market (people who don't believe the certificate system is decentralized enough), although admittedly there is certainly overlap.

And again, if the majority of the Curecoin community is against this idea, we won't launch it.

At this point, the most likely plan for SigmaX (based on all of your guys' feedback) is this:
-Do a 1:1 issue of SigmaX to Curecoin. Emission schedules up for discussion (weekly for a year based on continual cc1.0 holding to avoid accidentally causing market swings?).
-Make the SigmaX mintage schedule model follow Curecoin 1.0 minus the PoS
-The conversion of Curecoin 1.0 to SigmaX doesn't involve burning--you keep your Curecoin, and you receive SigmaX. When 2.0 launches, your cc1.0 converts 1:1 to cc2.0, as has always been the plan.

What are people's thoughts on this idea?

They can't handle one coin... what make you think they can handle two?

wake up bro those guys are f***ing with us

if they want to clone it before someone else does, then make it 100% POS and let the current holder have 100% of the premine

The all moto of Curecoin is POW is a waste of energy so seriously WTF

It is essentially a clone of CC2.0 but will use PoW instead of certificates very little needs to be done to make the changes to enable SigmaX to launch. I'd rather find out some specifics before concocting conspiracy theories.

WHAT??

When is the snapshot? I have most of my holdings on the exchange too.

This needs more investigation.

They surely wouldn't dare sell-out curecoin holders and supporters would they?

Perhaps we are not understanding what he meant correctly?

Let's await some Q and A before we make any changes.

The last time I heard oh yeah we're starting a new project but the old project will be our main focus was Xc and blocknet.

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

1. The ratio of SigmaX to Curecoin is irrelevant as they are different currencies. CC1.0 will translate 1:1 to CC2.0 that is all that matters. Also CC2.0 is infact not the first quantum resistant blockchain there are other coins which have taken on this issue although their implementation is different.

2. The promises made regarding economic characteristics of CC remain unchanged, however I would like to see that the CC1.0 premine for payouts to folders in not used to cash in on SigmaX distribution that would seem unfair.

3. The only person you can blame for not receiving pos for your balance of CC is yourself, it is your choice to leave ur CC on an exchange.

4. Totally agree there needs to be a large overhaul of largely outdated material relating to CC.


Are there any specifics you have in mind for SigmaX, such as total supply, block time, difficulty targeting mechanisim or what algo to use?
I wonder if the premine can be avoided, just a quick thought but perhaps you could make it so you can Burn CC in exchange for SigmaX.

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications. 

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise. 

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.

You have your wallet unlocked for staking, right?

If you're at full 90-day stake weight, I'd guess somewhere around 10k coins split across a bunch of addresses should be staking daily if not more.

What do you believe is the minimum amount of Curecoin in order to stake in a day? I can't seem to stake at all maybe it is my weight?

Great to see some movement on this project, many thanks to the Devs for sticking with it!

Someone PM'd me to discuss the 1% of first year mintage of SigmaX for folders, so I'd like to open that discussion up to the community.

I'd like to clarify a few points about the relationship between Curecoin and SigmaX:
-SigmaX and Curecoin 2.0 are entirely independent blockchains
-SigmaX will be purely proof of work, using a treechain-friendly hashing algorithm
-Curecoin 2.0 will still launch, likely within two or three weeks of the successful SigmaX full launch
-SigmaX will be the 'bleeding-edge' production test for updates to the Curecoin 2.0 code in the future. Things will go SigmaX testnet -> Curecoin 2.0 testnet -> SigmaX mainnet -> Curecoin 2.0 mainnet
-Curecoin 2.0 will only be mineable through folding

We wanted to premine a small amount of SigmaX and give it out to current holders of Curecoin to reward you guys for sticking with the project. The 1% figure was chosen since we figured that it'd be small enough that the general cryptocurrency community wouldn't be bothered by it.

If people want a larger percentage to go to Curecoin users, there's a few ways to do it:
-Simply premine a larger amount
-Have a permanent or decaying block subsidy for each SigmaX block that pays to a public address we control, and we'd do payouts of that using our traditional pool setup
-Have a larger premine mature gradually in the future, and do periodic payouts from that
-Have a larger premine mature all at one point in the future, and do the payouts at that point

And again, there's no dev fund, IPO/ICO/crowdsale for SigmaX.

Thanks! Just for clarification to anyone who watches that video, the PoS isn't related to folding, but rather is part of the PoW component.

Assuming SigmaX launch goes smoothly and no major issues present themselves with the larger network, then CC2.0 is just a matter of replacing the PoW algorithm with certificates, which won't be difficult at all. We'll probably just gather the Curecoin community's opinion on how long we should let SigmaX run to be confident that the network scales well, which I expect will be two or three weeks.

Very interesting, can we assume that CC2.0 will be ready some weeks after launch of SigmaX or is there some setback due to certificate system?

Hey everyone, sorry about the radio silence!

The 2.0 code is coming along nicely, but we need to do a larger-scale test of the mini-blockchain + merkle-signature scheme.

The Curecoin developers are planning to launch a beta of "SigmaX," which will be a PoW-only quantum-computer-resistant cryptocurrency, based on the refactored 2.0 code I'm polishing up. We want to stress that
Curecoin is still our primary project, but SigmaX will serve four purposes:
-Non-ghosttown blockchain to test our ideas for 2.0 before launch (primarily looking at scalability of our mini-blockchain implementation)
-Give a quantum-computer-resistant blockchain to people concerned about the centralization of Curecoin 2.0 certificates
-After launch of cc2.0, serve as a production test for updates
-Get exposure for the Curecoin project

SigmaX will have a small (<1% of the first year of mintage) premine, which will be paid to current holders of Curecoin (we'll do a "snapshot" of the Curecoin blockchain at a certain block, and people will sign a message with their curecoin address to redeem their portion of the SigmaX). No dev funds, no IPO/ICO/crowdsale, and any unclaimed part of the premine will be provably burned after a few months.
We'll launch the beta for SigmaX in the next week (testnet), and the full network launch will come a few weeks later.

SigmaX will also use what we call a 'narrowing' hashing function which could make scalable treechains possible in the future. The algorithm will be CPU/GPU mineable, with an OpenCL and CUDA miner available on launch.

This balance of donations will change in the future :-)

We made a commitment to donate the funds from the Endometriosis Pilot Study proposal to FAH if it didn't reach critical mass. We had an initial indication from (what will remain an un-named source at Stanford) that, with the right funding, it would be possible. An Indiegogo draft was written (to which we would add the donated CureCoins regardless of market value if we could get an official nod), however then we got radio silence, while the charity and physicians we were talking to, told us they were committed to supporting UCSF research instead. You can read all about it on the forum and reddit if you have an extra hour. So we were committed to do what we promised with that donation, which was to donate them to fund Stanford servers. This was truly a one-off opportunity that we couldn't pass up, if not a bit disappointing in the end.


On the "helping Big Pharma" question, all the results from FAH are made public, and any patents that Stanford may file as a result must to be sold to the highest bidder. So the ultimate winners are still the public who benefit from any resulting drug compounds (unless said Big Pharama entity decides to manipulate the resulting patent somehow downstream - that's an entirely separate discussion). In the meantime, Stanford can use those funds to enhance their research and create new projects for FAH to crunch.

The Dev is raising money for Stanford's Pande Labs. I think for now it should be used to advance and increase Curecoin not give money to Stanford's Pande Labs. "CureCoin converted an additional 280,000 CURE donations into over $2200 USD. CureCoin's Latest Donations to Folding at Home (Pande Labs)" curecoin.net

I'm all for charity but the dev should raise money to improve the coin, once the coin is successful I'm 100% sure hundreds of thousands of dollars will be raised for charity. I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse...  

I don't believe a hardfork is the answer at least in the short term, cc2.0 will need a hardfork and it makes little sense to do so twice. I would however support increasing the dev fund when cc2.0 launches. Perhaps a much more simple way for the time being is for folders to increase their donation percentage on the cryptobullions folding pool. I can't help but think even if the devs get 10% though its still peanuts with the current price. And perhaps herein lies the true problem, the only ones profiting from this research is big pharma not exactly a shining example of philanthropy. Perhaps the only way a coin like this can be successful is to cut out the middleman (stanford) and crunch data directly for big companies who can profit, they could "pay" for this by exerting buy pressure on the market, just how much they pay would come down too their own requirements and the value of data processing to them.