Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 85. (Read 696267 times)
July 18, 2015, 03:54:02 AM
What happens to the coins for sha-256 mining after CC2.0 launches will they become part of the pool for folding payouts?
July 16, 2015, 10:38:56 AM
I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read 
) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).
I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
Unfortunately the value of a cryptocurrency (or anything else, for that matter) is based on some form of scarcity. If coins were tied to a particular amount of computational power (say, each Curecoin represented 1GFlop running for one day), then the currency would only lose value over time, and thus become unattractive to investors, meaning there would be no incentive for people to buy the currency as basic laws of economics would dictate that the USD$ value of each coin was only to go down.
As computing power gets cheaper, Folding@Home points are easier to generate--a GPU from 2009 generated only, say, 8000 points per day in 2009, when it was top-of-the-line. And today, it still only generates about 8000 points per day. Nowadays, a high-end GPU can generate upwards of 400,000 points per day, even over 600,000 points per day in certain conditions. As such, if each point was a coin, then a coin awarded today would be guaranteed to cost many times more than an equal-by-fungibility coin awarded in 2020, when GPUs are significantly faster still.
The goal of your idea is exactly what we're trying to achieve: offer incentives for more and more people to do more and more folding. However, for Curecoin to be able to achieve such a goal, it has to contain value, without stacking cards against its potential monetary value. It's one of those necessary-evil things, if Curecoins were worthless, they wouldn't offer incentives for people to fold. It'd be like giving out gold stars.
July 16, 2015, 10:29:58 AM
Where can I get a copy of the folding pool source? I'd like to get Franko folders back up and running.. i'm not sure why the pool source hasnt been made opensource yet.
There's nothing particularly interesting in the folding pool source code--it takes stats from Stanford, puts them in a database, and then calls them out, totals the day total, finds a percent, sends payments.
That being said, I'll open-source the new pool we're releasing in a few days, so anyone else can also pay folders
July 16, 2015, 10:19:48 AM
I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read ) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).
I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
I think you look wrong at this...
when more people join the folding, each folder get less CURE, but each coin can have more value. because it was more difficulty to obtain.
(just like in Bitcoin and other POW coins)
with what you suggest, a folder can get constant amount of CURE, but the more people join, the coin can have less value.
this is not a Company, but a POW 'contest'
July 16, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read ) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).
I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).
Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.
The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.
But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.
And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?
July 13, 2015, 04:43:59 PM
Woot, made it into the top 1,000 
You know there exist articles and posts on social media by researchers who talk about distributed computing helping their work. Why not link to those in OP? People like links.
You know there exist articles and posts on social media by researchers who talk about distributed computing helping their work. Why not link to those in OP? People like links.
July 13, 2015, 03:18:38 PM
Where can I get a copy of the folding pool source? I'd like to get Franko folders back up and running.. i'm not sure why the pool source hasnt been made opensource yet.
July 09, 2015, 10:21:52 AM
Please give formatting to the numbers ... Difficult to read without ' , ideally based on user defaults.
The numbers on the new pool frontend?
July 09, 2015, 07:05:31 AM
Please give formatting to the numbers ... Difficult to read without ' , ideally based on user defaults.
July 09, 2015, 04:12:17 AM
How is public beta going?
Of 2.0? 2.0.0a1 went pretty well, got some good debugging stats. Hope to have another alpha test (2.0.0a2) out in a few weeks to address some problems we experienced on the network, and to add some more features.
Not many people tried out 2.0.0a1, but we still got good information from it.
I'll make sure to join in 2.0.0a2 test
July 09, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
How is public beta going?
Of 2.0? 2.0.0a1 went pretty well, got some good debugging stats. Hope to have another alpha test (2.0.0a2) out in a few weeks to address some problems we experienced on the network, and to add some more features.
Not many people tried out 2.0.0a1, but we still got good information from it.
July 08, 2015, 10:37:22 PM
How is public beta going?
July 07, 2015, 01:47:15 AM
Hey guys, folding@home stats are back up, so sometime tomorrow you should receive back-compensation for the last three days of work.
We've also been working on a brand-new stats frontend AND backend. Here's a screenshot of the new dashboard:
We've also been working on a brand-new stats frontend AND backend. Here's a screenshot of the new dashboard:
July 04, 2015, 11:22:54 PM
Folding@Home is having some backend problems, so we're waiting on those to be resolved before doing a payout. You'll see some web server errors as you browse their website, and the stats page we grab is completely unavailable.
July 02, 2015, 03:22:22 AM
Thanks no plans to dump any wu's just prefer not to get too many since the ppd is significantly lower than other projects.
no plans to dump any wu's just prefer not to get too many since the ppd is significantly lower than other projects. July 02, 2015, 03:02:04 AM
Anyone getting project 9411 wu's the points seem very low for how long they take. Getting about ~80k ppd for 280x hope i don't get too many of these. Is there anyway to specify which projects you do?
it's randomly assigned ... you might just be getting a slew of them. Please don't dump an active WU - 80K PPD doesn't indicate any major problem.
The 9411 WU target Tumor suppressor protein p53
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/fahproject.overusingIPswillbebanned?p=9411
If it becomes a concern your setup isn't optimized for 9411 WU's, you can switch to prioritize Alzheimers, Parkinsons, or Huntingtons by selecting Configuration / Advanced in your folding client. Your next job will no longer be a 9411 project.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SbEvMz_u9hRzlWRXAxNWUtdVU/preview
(actually an indication how CureCoin could also be used to prioritize research in the future - based on public demand
You can also check with the folding forum on advice on making the 9411 run faster with the 280x cards - just avoid CureCoin team specific discussions to avoid unnecessary headaches.
https://foldingforum.org/search.php?keywords=9411
July 02, 2015, 02:05:11 AM
Anyone getting project 9411 wu's the points seem very low for how long they take. Getting about ~80k ppd for 280x hope i don't get too many of these. Is there anyway to specify which projects you do?
June 30, 2015, 05:47:21 PM
Hi and a big thank you to the Curecoin team especially, and to supporters generally:
My feeling is that you, the CC team have put in a tremendous effort to date, and that you are creating something very special with CC 2.0. This is the only work on anything that I have seen that is to be quantum computing resistant. The security of cryptocurrencies is one of their top attractions to the public, for they are generally designed to be not diluted by governments, counterfeiters, credit multipliers in the banking system, etc. There has been a lot of investment in bitcoin and alt coins for both security, and sometimes for partial or complete privacy. I have an Army analogy for your work: When learning to defend against enemy fire, get in a foxhole, bunker, or behind rocks or trees. This real security is what you are creating with quantum resistant Curecoin. Privacy is only second best: hiding behind bushes, walls, and other screens. Bitcoin has partial privacy, while Darkcoin, Monero, etc. make attempts at full privacy. Conclusion: When finished, CC will be a superior currency to all previous currencies because of its ultra-high security. IMHO, the work of protein folding and other useful scientific projects is, sorry to say it, only secondary to having the best currency. By chance, early design, or exposure through the F@H program, you guys appear to be creating not only the best currency, but also the best way to mine/earn it.
Because of the constructive science in CC, it can have the wind at its back, once CC 2.0 is released. Schools may decide to teach using this blockchain instead of bitcoin, especially with the cool high security. People may give paper wallets (if one is made), to children as a way to help remember a relative who died of a certain disease being researched. Perhaps there will be a way to charge big pharma, etc. in CC for computing power which is applied to folding one day.
I have seen some interest in this thread by developers, but work was apparently put off, b/c the new code is not finished. I expect that you will have some audience with developers who want to try your code when it is ready.
So, please try to continue to grind out the work in finishing this bear of a crypto instead of being distracted. I sincerely believe that it will rise well in value when you do and its features and story has been properly published. As an accountant I will be glad to provide some suggestions for the UI, but I would envision that as something to go in a later version, unless you strongly disagree. In order to make it attractive to the layman, please try to implement an easy-to-use interface for things like an optional backup of the wallet data file to a different directory, periodically, or setting up a paper wallet option. IMO, these are more important to adoption than things like hooking into a lot of different research facilities. For the common person in a wallet, menus=good, but text=bad (our typing of text is just one more thing that we have to learn about and can mess up, and possibly lose our coins). Thanks for listening
My feeling is that you, the CC team have put in a tremendous effort to date, and that you are creating something very special with CC 2.0. This is the only work on anything that I have seen that is to be quantum computing resistant. The security of cryptocurrencies is one of their top attractions to the public, for they are generally designed to be not diluted by governments, counterfeiters, credit multipliers in the banking system, etc. There has been a lot of investment in bitcoin and alt coins for both security, and sometimes for partial or complete privacy. I have an Army analogy for your work: When learning to defend against enemy fire, get in a foxhole, bunker, or behind rocks or trees. This real security is what you are creating with quantum resistant Curecoin. Privacy is only second best: hiding behind bushes, walls, and other screens. Bitcoin has partial privacy, while Darkcoin, Monero, etc. make attempts at full privacy. Conclusion: When finished, CC will be a superior currency to all previous currencies because of its ultra-high security. IMHO, the work of protein folding and other useful scientific projects is, sorry to say it, only secondary to having the best currency. By chance, early design, or exposure through the F@H program, you guys appear to be creating not only the best currency, but also the best way to mine/earn it.
Because of the constructive science in CC, it can have the wind at its back, once CC 2.0 is released. Schools may decide to teach using this blockchain instead of bitcoin, especially with the cool high security. People may give paper wallets (if one is made), to children as a way to help remember a relative who died of a certain disease being researched. Perhaps there will be a way to charge big pharma, etc. in CC for computing power which is applied to folding one day.
I have seen some interest in this thread by developers, but work was apparently put off, b/c the new code is not finished. I expect that you will have some audience with developers who want to try your code when it is ready.
So, please try to continue to grind out the work in finishing this bear of a crypto instead of being distracted. I sincerely believe that it will rise well in value when you do and its features and story has been properly published. As an accountant I will be glad to provide some suggestions for the UI, but I would envision that as something to go in a later version, unless you strongly disagree. In order to make it attractive to the layman, please try to implement an easy-to-use interface for things like an optional backup of the wallet data file to a different directory, periodically, or setting up a paper wallet option. IMO, these are more important to adoption than things like hooking into a lot of different research facilities. For the common person in a wallet, menus=good, but text=bad (our typing of text is just one more thing that we have to learn about and can mess up, and possibly lose our coins). Thanks for listening
June 30, 2015, 04:11:52 AM
Hey everyone, the Curecoin team is looking for input on some ideas:
1. A pure-PoS cryptocurrency that we pay out for 30 days for contributions to a few other scientific projects during the next month, and then runs in pure PoS mode forever, after payout premine funds are exhausted. Does not convert to 2.0--this would be an entirely separate, short-term coin.
2. A refocus of cc1.0 to pay out users for contribution to multiple projects bridging the gap between now and 2.0 launch. Payouts would occur in regular Curecoin. Either we could continue with the 7488 coin emission per day and allocate a certain quantity of it to other scientific projects, or we could increase the daily coin emission.
3. The accumulation of 'virtual' curecoins for contributions to other scientific projects until 2.0 launches, which would convert to 2.0 coins at launch.
Remember, all Curecoin 1.0 coins WILL be convertable to 2.0 coins at a one-to-one conversion ratio when 2.0 launches. That being said, option 1 above is a separate coin, and would not be convertible to 2.0 coins, it would be a separate blockchain entirely.
Here's the other projects we're looking at at the moment:
GPUGrid
World Community Grid (Not entirely medical, but very humanitarian-oriented)
Rosetta@Home
DENIS@Home also looks interesting, though we'd like to see the project develop a bit further before integrating with it, as it is very new.
POEM@Home is also an interesting project, though it seems somewhat inactive. Keeping our eyes on it for sure.
If anyone has any other projects they'd like to see on the above list, or any reasons for not liking the ones mentioned, please voice your opinions! Projects like SETI@Home, MilkyWay@Home, DistRTgen, Primegrid, Yoyo@Home, and Einstein@Home aren't currently under consideration due to pursuing goals outside the main focus of Curecoin--like searching radio signals for signs of intelligent life, mapping the galaxy, generating rainbow tables, finding prime numbers, exploring mathematical principles, etc. While these are valid and fascinating types of research, Curecoin's main goal still lies in medical advancement and similar humanitarian goals. Some projects lay out the outskirts of Curecoin territory, such as ClimatePrediction.net.
If enough people in the community feel very strongly about a non-medical project being added to Curecoin, we're here to listen, but we don't want to dilute the project's goals.
1. A pure-PoS cryptocurrency that we pay out for 30 days for contributions to a few other scientific projects during the next month, and then runs in pure PoS mode forever, after payout premine funds are exhausted. Does not convert to 2.0--this would be an entirely separate, short-term coin.
2. A refocus of cc1.0 to pay out users for contribution to multiple projects bridging the gap between now and 2.0 launch. Payouts would occur in regular Curecoin. Either we could continue with the 7488 coin emission per day and allocate a certain quantity of it to other scientific projects, or we could increase the daily coin emission.
3. The accumulation of 'virtual' curecoins for contributions to other scientific projects until 2.0 launches, which would convert to 2.0 coins at launch.
Remember, all Curecoin 1.0 coins WILL be convertable to 2.0 coins at a one-to-one conversion ratio when 2.0 launches. That being said, option 1 above is a separate coin, and would not be convertible to 2.0 coins, it would be a separate blockchain entirely.
Here's the other projects we're looking at at the moment:
GPUGrid
World Community Grid (Not entirely medical, but very humanitarian-oriented)
Rosetta@Home
DENIS@Home also looks interesting, though we'd like to see the project develop a bit further before integrating with it, as it is very new.
POEM@Home is also an interesting project, though it seems somewhat inactive. Keeping our eyes on it for sure.
If anyone has any other projects they'd like to see on the above list, or any reasons for not liking the ones mentioned, please voice your opinions! Projects like SETI@Home, MilkyWay@Home, DistRTgen, Primegrid, Yoyo@Home, and Einstein@Home aren't currently under consideration due to pursuing goals outside the main focus of Curecoin--like searching radio signals for signs of intelligent life, mapping the galaxy, generating rainbow tables, finding prime numbers, exploring mathematical principles, etc. While these are valid and fascinating types of research, Curecoin's main goal still lies in medical advancement and similar humanitarian goals. Some projects lay out the outskirts of Curecoin territory, such as ClimatePrediction.net.
If enough people in the community feel very strongly about a non-medical project being added to Curecoin, we're here to listen, but we don't want to dilute the project's goals.
Personally I don't see the point in diluting the efforts of this project away from folding@home at least until cc2.0. Once the certificate system is up and running I see benefits in branching out to support new projects but probably this should be done by adding a new coin type, this way users can "vote" which projects are most important to them by supporting the network for the research project of their choice.
June 29, 2015, 07:17:03 PM
Did payouts stop for merged folding? I haven't received a payout since June 18th.
Just curious as I'd been getting regular payouts for a long while and in the last 10 days, nadda.
Just curious as I'd been getting regular payouts for a long while and in the last 10 days, nadda.
There have been some payout issues, but you should have received payments.
What's your folding username?
Jump to: