Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018 - page 82. (Read 696274 times)

full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
This is not a copy paste coin and things take time to write from scratch, I notice in the cryptosphere everyone wants advanced features yesterday with a view to get rich quick. While I would agree some more regular updates wouldn't hurt, we just need to be patient. When code like this is being written from scratch it is inevitable that it will take a long time to get it just right. What would be worse is if the coding is rushed leaving vulnerabilities which could totally ruin the coin for ever. In the meantime you can enjoy the low prices to accumulate and participate in the community discussion, the dev's have asked for community input on a number of ideas so if there are features you want or ideas you would like to share please do so!

After a year I think I can say I have been patient...

I would like a clear roadmap and if possible I would like to know if any University is sponsoring CC 2.0 and if not what are we doing to make sure someone will in the near future.
hero member
Activity: 799
Merit: 1000
This is not a copy paste coin and things take time to write from scratch, I notice in the cryptosphere everyone wants advanced features yesterday with a view to get rich quick. While I would agree some more regular updates wouldn't hurt, we just need to be patient. When code like this is being written from scratch it is inevitable that it will take a long time to get it just right. What would be worse is if the coding is rushed leaving vulnerabilities which could totally ruin the coin for ever. In the meantime you can enjoy the low prices to accumulate and participate in the community discussion, the dev's have asked for community input on a number of ideas so if there are features you want or ideas you would like to share please do so!
full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
with more good devs on board this coin would have gone way further way faster.



I totally agree with you.

I also wish we could have a clear vision on when curecoin 2.0 will be out and if any universities are actually supporting the project.

I have personally no idea how and where we are going... CC 2.0 should have been out over a year ago if you listen to the dev.

This coin could be worth over 10usd a coin with the right dev and a good marketing... look at litecoin!

Very very sad because I love the idea.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
with more good devs on board this coin would have gone way further way faster.

full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
Hello, Skin cancer has a history in my family (including myself). Cure Coin (CURE) is doing a wonderful thing! The dev/moderators should see a rise in the coin price and the number of coins generated. I have signed up at least 8 people in the last 3 days and have been advertising Cure Coin on Facebook, Twitter and the btc loan site BTCPOP. Let's all get involved now and give Cure a big push to get more people involved! We are making a difference! Thanks BigBertha

Thanks for your help though! One of the more difficult things, is getting people who don't know about BitCoin or folding at home to sign up and fold.
hero member
Activity: 799
Merit: 1000
Hello, Skin cancer has a history in my family (including myself). Cure Coin (CURE) is doing a wonderful thing! The dev/moderators should see a rise in the coin price and the number of coins generated. I have signed up at least 8 people in the last 3 days and have been advertising Cure Coin on Facebook, Twitter and the btc loan site BTCPOP. Let's all get involved now and give Cure a big push to get more people involved! We are making a difference! Thanks BigBertha

The number of coins generated is fixed amount shared between all contributors, so the coins generated will not increase.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Hello, Skin cancer has a history in my family (including myself). Cure Coin (CURE) is doing a wonderful thing! The dev/moderators should see a rise in the coin price and the number of coins generated. I have signed up at least 8 people in the last 3 days and have been advertising Cure Coin on Facebook, Twitter and the btc loan site BTCPOP. Let's all get involved now and give Cure a big push to get more people involved! We are making a difference! Thanks BigBertha
full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
As we near the 2.0 update we can feel the energy rise. Here are some site you can find info as progress is made.
https://www.curecoin.net/
http://curecoinfolding.com/

full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
any news on cc2.0 ?

thanks

Either can watch curecoinfolding.com or look back the past 20 pages on this forum has some things on it. Otherwise Vorksholk posts as soon as he has made enough progress to make an update.
full member
Activity: 153
Merit: 100
We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.


I have so much feel good points, YES! I am never selling them.

me too Smiley
if you want CURE. go fold yourself!

I just broke 200k =0 Not selling until $1000 usd each. If that goal never comes at least I contributed to something great. Oh my second goal is to own 1 million Feel good points. If you want to stop me buy them before I do =p
full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
any news on cc2.0 ?

thanks
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.


I have so much feel good points, YES! I am never selling them.

me too Smiley
if you want CURE. go fold yourself!
member
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.


I have so much feel good points, YES! I am never selling them.
legendary
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029
newbie
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
legendary
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029
why price so low... what is the problem with this coin ??

Nothing.
I think the real question is what is wrong with the crypto community, here we have a viable alt that replaces the waste of computing resources for pointless pow clones yet we have very little market interest. Probably the bottom line is alot of the big players in crypto are just in it to line their fiat wallets and not for the ideals of crypto itself.

hopefully there will be better future for Curecoin
will the new version be POS only ?

No but the new version will remove the sha256 mining component for certificates which can be issued by university etc.

Smiley faces on the website or not---selling folder-donated CURE on markets and donating the USD to stanford is not helping folders.  It should go to more dev or it should be burned.  Not dumped and donated to stanford.

Reading _future_ talk in the thread, it sounds all backwards.  Entities who need collective computing power will be able to create more CURE?  Shouldn't they be buying CURE and using it to pay for computing power?  We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.

The eventual goal of Curecoin isn't to create an environment where people generate a living from folding, but rather are able to offset their costs while improving the state of computational science. It's a different paradigm entirely: most altcoin mining aims to turn profits, Curecoin mining aims to offset costs. Neither is necessarily bad or good, simply different. It could certainly be argued that converting CURE to USD to donate to Stanford and other DCNs does less good than bad (as in, the price decrease in CureCoin turns more folders off from folding than the money helps to advance science by improving DCN internal architectures). As a team, we believe that the money donated to Stanford and other DCNs from donated Curecoin does far more to advance the state of computational science than a mild, temporary drop in price does to deter folders. It's a judgement call, and one that can't be simplified to a set of equations to solve for a net benefit or loss, unfortunately.

That being said, we are doing everything we can while converting the Curecoin to USD to donate to Stanford to not influence the market price--selling small quantities, selling at reasonable prices, etc.

As for future plans for 2.0, the same logic applies in a different manner: prioritizing net gains to computational science in that coin rewards are distributed from the institutes directly. Theoretically, this doesn't change the actual markets/equilibrium for Curecoin terribly much, it simply removes our position as "keepers" of the folding funds, further securing the network against any kind of compromise of our servers, and to alleviate people's concerns about us suddenly dumping a bunch of the folding-reserved Curecoin on the markets for self-benefit or whatever.

It does change the balance of power in the network, removing power from us the devs, and placing the ability to award coins in the hands of universities. There's still the potential for network abuse (as has been brought up and discussed before), but any system which awards coins based on some non-autonomously-verifiable PoW (like hashing, or finding primes). Ensuring work units were completed correctly isn't something the Curecoin network could feasibly do. In Bitcoin, peers who are verifying the block was solved correctly simply recompute the one winning hash with the provided golden nonce and additional state information to ensure the result falls under the target. If Curecoin were to behave in this way, the network would need every verifying peer to recompute the entire work unit. This means that, if one block on the network was released per minute (one of the considered speeds for 2.0), peers would have to verify 60 blocks per hour, or 60 WUs per hour. The (often MB-range, especially for something like GPUGrid) WUs would have to be stored on the network, broadcast to all (or many) peers, and the computation would have to finish in under a minute. Nodes could be specifically set to verify different WUs, but then the network has to trust anonymous peers. If we have some kind of Curecoin-controlled nodes which do the verification and are built to be beefy and capable of, between all of them, verifying WUs, then we're back to where we started, with trusting a third party (us). In the end, no individual could reasonably re-verify the whole blockchain (like they can with Bitcoin and derivatives) themselves, nor could they store the entire blockchain, even if they were able to download it.

And that doesn't even account for the non-deterministic nature of some WUs. Some WUs will yield marginally different results depending on the precision of the hardware they're running on, PRNGs seeded with system time, hell knows what else. This issue could, foreseeably, be fixed, but it still wouldn't fix the above computational mess.

If WUs were to be made shorter, it would reduce the size of the blockchain and time time it took to compute the WU, but there is a lower limit of reasonable WU size and execution time, considering the nature of the problems being approached. If WUs were made to take 10 seconds, it would be impossible to run any meaningful simulation--sometimes one single frame of simulation can take a considerably substantial period of time. And as models grow more advanced and account for more variables, this becomes even more difficult.

In the event that, instead of recomputing the WU to verify it, there was an algorithm (much like Stanford uses for determining WU validity) that could be run on peers, it would have to be included in the source code. This would reveal exactly how WUs are validated, and would open the algorithm up to people attempting to game it by submitting bogus WUs that still validate with the validation algorithm.

So the solution is to allow the DCNs to determine which WUs are valid, and then award Curecoins. However, to avoid just giving them a stack of Curecoins and hoping they treat them correctly, we instead give them the ability to sign certificates. This allows the network to see all of the coins "payed out" by a DCN, when they were created, etc. It also allows the network to impose rules on block generation, and allows us to make a near-bulletproof algorithm to prevent forking (requiring blocks to stack DCNs, so one DCN couldn't produce more than n (determined by an algorithm that adjusts to represent network state) blocks in a row, requiring a potential attacker to compromise multiple DCNs simultaneously to even *try* to fork the network). Finally, it gives a digital trail of assignment activity, which could be used if a DCN were to be investigated for unfairly assigning coins. Finally, network rules can dictate the balance of DCN mintage, and can be refined over time in response to community input (either to devs, or by a network voting system).

In 2.0, we the Devs would also have the ability to sign blocks, but these blocks would not contain any coinbase transaction--no way for us (or someone who forges our blocks, somehow) to make money--no coins would be mined with the blocks we make. They would just be there to help regulate the choppy seas of the network's block time erratic nature due to hashing functions determining winning 'tickets,' and add a further point of protection against network forks (like, a dev block could be required between every actual DCN block, so if someone were to fork the network more than one block, they would need to compromise our signature servers in addition to multiple DCNs simultaneously. That's tough.

Anyhow, a slight deviation from your initial question/remark, but I hope this helped clear up the decision to allow DCNs to sign blocks/initiate coin mintage.

As to your question as to why they don't buy Curecoins and use those to buy computational power--that system already exists. Any university could gather money and pay for supercomputing time, and run their workloads. The problem is they don't have a budget for doing this--and requiring them to pay for the Curecoin network's computation power would just add another avenue through which to purchase computational power. A network which allowed renting time on supercomputer-like resources is an awesome idea that's been attempted/discussed several times in other projects, but it's against the grain of what Curecoin's already trying to do.
hero member
Activity: 799
Merit: 1000
why price so low... what is the problem with this coin ??

Nothing.
I think the real question is what is wrong with the crypto community, here we have a viable alt that replaces the waste of computing resources for pointless pow clones yet we have very little market interest. Probably the bottom line is alot of the big players in crypto are just in it to line their fiat wallets and not for the ideals of crypto itself.

hopefully there will be better future for Curecoin
will the new version be POS only ?

No but the new version will remove the sha256 mining component for certificates which can be issued by university etc.

Smiley faces on the website or not---selling folder-donated CURE on markets and donating the USD to stanford is not helping folders.  It should go to more dev or it should be burned.  Not dumped and donated to stanford.

Reading _future_ talk in the thread, it sounds all backwards.  Entities who need collective computing power will be able to create more CURE?  Shouldn't they be buying CURE and using it to pay for computing power?  We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.

They won't be creating additional coins but issuing certificates for already existing cure that was originally intended for the mining/folding components of cure.
full member
Activity: 171
Merit: 100
Has anybody else had issues with the F@Home client on windows? Namely when the computer goes to sleep.

I'm guessing you're folding on a GPU? That doesnt work with sleep mode, due to the way windows backs up memory. Main Ram is cached, so CPU folding works ok - but GPU ram is is not preserved during sleep, so the client fails. It's not a problem with the client, just the way windows handles things when is goes into sleep mode.


Yup, you got it. Thanks for the response!
newbie
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
why price so low... what is the problem with this coin ??

Nothing.
I think the real question is what is wrong with the crypto community, here we have a viable alt that replaces the waste of computing resources for pointless pow clones yet we have very little market interest. Probably the bottom line is alot of the big players in crypto are just in it to line their fiat wallets and not for the ideals of crypto itself.

hopefully there will be better future for Curecoin
will the new version be POS only ?

No but the new version will remove the sha256 mining component for certificates which can be issued by university etc.

Smiley faces on the website or not---selling folder-donated CURE on markets and donating the USD to stanford is not helping folders.  It should go to more dev or it should be burned.  Not dumped and donated to stanford.

Reading _future_ talk in the thread, it sounds all backwards.  Entities who need collective computing power will be able to create more CURE?  Shouldn't they be buying CURE and using it to pay for computing power?  We need to rethink this, or we're going to just end up with feel-good Points Per Day and CURE Per Day.
hero member
Activity: 799
Merit: 1000
why price so low... what is the problem with this coin ??

Nothing.
I think the real question is what is wrong with the crypto community, here we have a viable alt that replaces the waste of computing resources for pointless pow clones yet we have very little market interest. Probably the bottom line is alot of the big players in crypto are just in it to line their fiat wallets and not for the ideals of crypto itself.

hopefully there will be better future for Curecoin
will the new version be POS only ?

No but the new version will remove the sha256 mining component for certificates which can be issued by university etc.
Pages:
Jump to: