Topic: Curecoin Launch is T minus 5-7 days. The new crypto 3.0 PRE ANN - page 3. (Read 10253 times)

So sad to hear this...
We know we can trust on you, but this will be very symilar to ripple "in distribution I mean" Of course you solve all these problems, but the coin becomes centralized, doesn't it? I suppose the wallet with 15,96 millions will be in developers hand right, or are this coins in a wallet which anyone knows the private key and harcoded into the coin code and distributed automatically via some scrypt?
Please explain, because I see many flaws here , I really want this project to success, at least the target is nice, but for which I see for now doesn't seems very proffesional.

Alright, looks like we need some clarification on the percentages, sorry about not putting that in my previous post!

3% of the coins will be the dev funds--paying for development of various infrastructure, paying for servers for hosting things, forum upkeep, web design, kickstarting Curecoin projects, bounties, etc. This money will be extremely transparent, we will have a blog where every transaction involving the dev funds is posted and explained, with a crosspost to the forum for comments.

2% of the coins will go to the initial donator funds. As a reminder, this amount was 1BTC per 10k Curecoins, and was used as a way to fund everything during development. The initial donations went way beyond what we expected, and as thus we still have some funds remaining from that, which we are using to buy powerful hosting for the forum, website, and file mirrors. On release, we will have multiple file mirrors, seed nodes around the world, etc. If anyone at this point wants a donation refund, I offer a buyback at 1.1BTC/10k Curecoins, a 10% profit over your initial investment for trusting us. Otherwise, your Curecoins will be waiting for you!

We sent this message to all investors:
-- If you are an investor and you did NOT receive this message, please PM me ASAP!

The remaining coins will be split 80/20 folding/mining. So considering all the total coins in the network as 100%, then the TOTAL folding funds will be 76% of the network, and the mining funds will be 19%.
As the way the coin was designed, the folding share is premined. This serves three purposes:

--> Preventing a future fork of the chain stealing folding funds
--> More reliable payout scheme, take the guessing out of folding
--> As the coin is PoS, a 51% attack on a PoS coin with a large amount of the coin reserved will be nearly impossible until the majority of coins have been paid out, at which point the network will be more than large enough to protect itself.


I really wish I could give you an exact time for launch, we're trying to work a bunch of people's schedules to all coincide so we can have pool operators, folders, developers, etc. available when it launches to answer questions, help people who are late on the folding train, etc.
As for prep-steps, you can check out the illustrated Windows folding guide I have over http://www.curecoin.us/index.php?topic=3482.0.

Nobody knows - I wish I knew.


Looking forward to it!

I agree transparency is a must - it'll probably be just as transparent as Bitcoin mining if not more. Plus F@H publishes its own stats so you could validate how many points people are getting. However, the verification would probably be similar to Bitcoin verification.

Also, when is the release?  Ive lost a lot of sleep already.

CureCoin SHA256 Pool will be up for prereg soon. Sadly it wont be on my new platform as its not ready yet, but atleast the current modified MPOS + stratum should be rock solid.

Ahmed

How will all this be verifiable? Transparency is a MUST

Here is the quote from Vorsholk about validating work units:


Yes lets see how they work. I think they idea of researchers submitting their own work units is a good idea - however, there would need to be a way to validate first whether the work units are completed and secondly if there are enough work units it is much more difficult coding wise and raw resource wise.

I'm guessing a white paper could be done in the year - I'm sure they will release one at some time. That would definitely help.

As for trying to answer your questions about the coins. The coins aren't premined and stored - that wouldn't work well. The way they work I believe is similar to Bitcoins.

So let me take a stab at this. Coin generation is like Bitcoin. So let's say a block is generated every 10 minutes containing 25 coins - like Bitcoin. Once those 25 coins are generated it is split 20% and 80%. 20% of the coins is split over the Asics similar to how coins are currently split with Bitcoins so the blocks go to one person who did the most mining and there will be pools for this and such.

The 80% of the coins will split proportionally based on how many points are generated. For example if during this time 5 people submit work units for 1000 - 2000 - 2000 - 3500 - 1500 points. Therefore person 1 would get 10% of the coins person 2 gets 20% person 3 gets 20% person 4 gets 35% person 5 gets 15%. These percents are for the 80% total coins. This shows how the 80% of coins are generated with each block.

I know they doesn't exist then, but yes some months ago, I think that was enbought time to do something, anyways, lets see how this work, we always have time to make a better option
And ofcourse, the p2p validation is getting rid off stanford, the aim, in my opinion, is to create a researchers computational network where everybody could send their works

Could you quote this issue about spaming "unusefull" work to the network?

Yes, but the 80% of coins where they come from? Are generated by the network every day and distributed to miners attending to coin code or this is done by the pool? Are they premined and stored in a wallet in hands of pool owners and then distributed to miners? I don't understand yet 
A white paper or something symilar would be great, in more than one year that I have been watching this project this could be done, couldn't it?

They could have used something like nxt or exocoin but I don't think these coins existed when they started curecoin development. However, I'm not sure for their reason for this. A p2p verification could be acceptable but I doubt stanford would accept those. A system could be made, however, I don't think it would work.

Spamming wouldn't work because they could be validated as Vorksholk addressed.

The coins will be distributed based of how many points you get for the 80% and I believe the 20% is distributed the same way Bitcoins are distributed.

I'm glad you love the project you have some good ideas .

People are going to have doubt and concerns, and debate these endlessly until they see everything in action.  If everything works as intended this has huge potential. You would be a fool not to be enthusiastically involved in this,  at least till a problem is found.

Hey everyone! To consolidate the above information into one explanation:

1.) Curecoin, as cygnusxi mentioned, is a hybrid PoW/PoS coin. The traditional PoW was, of course, SHA256D for Bitcoin. Like Bitcoin, Curecoin uses SHA256D, and the PoS first implemented by PPCoin.

2.) People have expressed concern over the possibility of people cheating Folding@Home. As pointed out higher up in this thread, parts of F@H that have to do with work formatting are closed-source in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of people faking workunits. However, no downloadable software is truly 'closed source', as at some level the software has to actually run, and to do so must be expressed in machine code/assembly. Folding@Home has server-side integrity checks of work units which aim to also eliminate attempts at cheating. Of course people will try, most will fail. As the project moves on, exploits will be found and fixed. Any project like this will suffer similar attacks, and at this point it is a small concern.

3.) The folding pool can be adapted to support other projects. Right now, Folding@Home is the project we chose to integrate first with. However, in the future, other projects can be added/removed and tracked. Our back-end works by aggregating statistics from Folding@Home, and doing a proportional payout. In a simple example, if User A got 20,000 Points on Tuesday and User B got 40,000 Points on Tuesday with no other users doing any folding, User A would get 33.3% of the Curecoins for that day's payout, and User B would get 66.6% of the Curecoins that day. If we were to add an additional project, we would need to find a conversion of points between the projects (use a benchmark machine or two, and test how many points per day that machine could get with each project for both CPU work and GPU work, and strike a balance by using a proportion to convert points from both projects into a normal point system). If a benchmarking machine could get 8,000 points per day on, say, Rosetta@Home while getting 12,000 PPD on F@H, then each Rosetta@Home point would be worth 3/2 of a F@H point, so if one person got 8000 R@H points and another got 12000 F@H points, they would receive equal payout, as they used approximately equal computational power for the same amount of time.

While we are not currently working on implementing other projects, the possibility is certainly there, and the project is not, by definition, tied to Folding@Home.

4.) Folding@Home is a major distributed computation network, and therefore has the resources to ensure that the project can continue to grow without causing problems.

People have also expressed concern over the proof-of-work being SHA256D. To summarize, SHA256D is a very light hashing algorithm that high-performance ASICs have been created and distributed for. Most other algorithms currently require the use of a GPU or CPU. ASICs are unable to do folding, while GPUs and CPUs are slow at SHA256D, so the logical choice is to allow ASICs to secure the network by doing hashing, while GPUs and CPUs can do the work they are great at--folding.

Works well with nvidia cards under Ubuntu. I run two GTX780 and one 660TI. Just need to make sure the "right" driver versions are installed. Original NV driver, not open source. And newer cards don't like older driver and vice versa.

1) There are currently some places that offer small rewards for folding. These rewards can be pretty substantial but aren't a lot because of costs if you use regular folding. However, if you were able to cheat the system the rewards would become significantly more worthwhile.

I do agree that F@H will probably get more cheat attempts as the coin comes hout, however, as of now they have quite a good system in place that would keep someone from folding random amino acids. I'll do more research into the details of their system to see how useful it is.

2) You could setup an oganization - except boinc has strict rules and generally you can't submit work units by themselves. And also, I don't think a system like this at least initially will be able to generate enough computing jobs for everyone mining the coin to be able to have something to do.

As said before a major problem that I see with making it open source is that their won't be enough work units for everyone mining the coin to have something. The bitcoin network is currently 160x as large as Stanford's F@H network which is like 45 petaflops. If we manage to add say another 45 petaflops then now they are theoretically getting results twice as fast which means they need to produce work units twice as fast. For a smaller network we may multiply it in size by say 50x and they may not be able to handle the demands.

I understand how one asic could get a few percent of the overall power especially in the beginning but I'm confused as too how that would crash the network.

I think Boinc could work however, Boinc would still have the same limitations you talked about with F@H and the calculations would still be integrated in a 80-20% system. I don't think they would change anything if they switched to boinc.

And as ChristianVirtual just touched on - part of the reason F@H is closed source for some parts is so that people don't get access to those parts and try to submit fake work units.

I kind of share the fears regarding your point 1; hopefully not happen.
As for Open source: the base of FAH is open source, every one can get it from here https://simtk.org/home/openmm. Researcher could build their own infrastructure based on that. I have no problem that FAH keeps their system closed . It's their decision to ensure integrity of the results created during the process.

Just looked it up - yes as of now if you have an AMD Gpu you can not fold on Linux. I'll see if I can talk to them about that because a lot of people are currently folding scrypt coins with Linux AMD rigs that are becoming obsolete so it would be nice to have a system that would allow these people to switch over. However, if you want to fold as of now you need to either switch to Nvidia GPUs or get a Windows operating system.