Topic: PRE [ANN] CureCoin development continues.... - page 20. (Read 94919 times)

One way to maybe help alleviate the people that are questioning the "high" 10% dev cut would be to have the devs publicly show how they are spending that 10%. I for one would be completely supportive if they are using the 10% to help promote curecoin but if they are taking 10% for their own use that is another story.

So, can gridcoin reward for GPU work?

Look everyone, I'm not here to bash anyone's coin and I don't know anything about cancercoin or curecoin, at all and
will read up on it.  I read a couple of the statements on page 3 and wanted to respond!

Gridcoin's hard-coded block reward is pretty easily exploitable,
a quick change in the way the code detects BOINC would give max coins every time a block is mined.

--> In the first release this may have been possible to exploit
using a fraudulent client, and each block may have passed the test to trick other nodes into accepting those blocks.

Since then we have designed a new protocol and expanded the spec
to store the boinchash information in the block header itself
and as you may know, each block header and its merkle root is hashed and related to prior blocks.

That version is already live and the current user base stores the data in this format in the chain.

We are close to making a mandatory upgrade that stores and enforces the integrity of those blocks by
making the clients reject non-boinc blocks.

Remember, we are in our infancy and we are still analyzing each clients md5 version and authenticity.

Security IS our utmost concern and will work hard to prevent tampering with the client specification.

--> Regarding the second statement about Gridcoin only measuring CPU usage:

Again, true in our first version, but since then
we haven't stopped innovating.  The newest version logs boinc credits over time, deltas, projects and averages
and stores that information in encrypted client files, reports on it, and hashes the information into
new blocks.  Eventually we will reward miners based on their avg daily boinc credits plus a homogenized
reading based on other factors.

Best Regards,
Preston Keys

10% to the devs at the start and decrease over-time as the network gets stronger?

But like the poster above said, I'll be supporting this project regardless.

As much as I support this project, I have to agree that 10% is a bit much.  If this project succeed, you will get the backing of the community in the form of donations.
I will still support the project should you guys decide to keep the 10%.  I would just not donate to the Dev fund but will still do giveaways to the miners.

Regardless, my asics is all warmed up and ready to go and hopefully to have a pool up as well.  


-tb-

Yup, there is some work duplication to be submitted, over the years Stanford has developed quite a good system for work validation.

I think 2 % is not enough initially for the devs, however of course 10% of all mined coins is going to be a sticking point and also that is going to create bad publicity for the coin in the media. If the coin takes off it will immediately spark questions of why the devs cut is so large when it is all in the name of helping cancer patients etc.  

The 10% will hurt the coins image it is a crazy percentage and other coins would have immediately been called out on this.  However the devs do need incentive to work and keep things going.  I mean if the coin takes off even 1% of all coins could be a huge amount of money.
  
If it's not going to be all open source then pools that start off at 10% but then decrease to a more reasonable 0.5% when the value of the coin is high on the exchanges would be more suitable.

The devs need to address this in their answers since it is largely being ignored although i see many people bringing it up.  The media will be fast to jump on this if it gets big enough. If you are asking people to make barely more than their electricity to help cancer research but taking a fortune in fee's?? that is not going to sit well.  Give aways is not a good thing, compared to fair earnings generated from the work people are doing.  

Asking people to trust you to do the right thing with 10% is a big stretch.  

There needs to be some flexible way to fund the devs a reasonable amount and if they want more they have to mine like everyone else.  

Look at the ranting other devs have taken over 2% premine.  I agree that taking it out over time is better than a premine but even so already i see the 10% is getting some people upset and will i think eventually ruin this coins great potential.  

Dev's looking at 10% you are either saying you believe the coin will totally flop or else you want to make a fortune out of it or you want people to trust you to do the right thing with the fee's. Either way it's not a great idea.

Nobody wants devs to work for nothing since it leads to neglect. How about work out a sensible wage for hours of work, then have pools that extract that with flexible percentages that can be adjusted as the coins value goes up and down. Also some of the devs have reasonable size mining farms so you can mine the coin also.

Really taking 10% does not effect people all that much individually and does give the devs huge incentive to make the coin work. I mean even if only 2% was taken that is only 8% difference for the individual or even 4% if they are just folding or mining not both. However, it just looks bad on paper and will certainly throw up questions about it, if people here are already unhappy the media will slap down on it hard. Having flexible pool rates will work much better.

Sounds quite interesting, but the 10% cut seems like too much. Paid pools could have been used instead which would also allow the flexibility to change the fee quite easily.

As yeltz said, it's important not to lose the larger picture on this. There are always people cheeting the system
on the folding side but this doesn't matter. These people have to deal with their conscience and karma in doing so.
Moreover, a system like curecoin should withstand this like every real society do. Moreover I am confident the most
people will do right, which is sufficient to give curecoin a serious reason to exist.

Abstract spoken, the miners are paying the folders to fold and this is fine, even if the folding computation part
is much lower, it is a least VERY usefull, this structural connection makes a lot of sense. You can bet the miners
will look into the folding part and watching the computation power over there. Even if they can't estimate how much
of this is cheeting, the relation in whole of this number counts, at least for me and I guess other miners agree
with this.

Thus said, I will throw 40 arm core's to the folding site, fitting nice into the whole - it makes sense - concept
due to the energy efficiency of these. One last question to the creators, I have had a look to use fpga's for folding
but found only an old paper, stating ist doesn't work well. This statement is a for sure  outdated (2007?) and based
on very small units (20K LE/ little bram). There are tons of capable fpgas out there able to handle this.
It would be a waste, using them for the mining part. Small asic's are better for this.
I would recommend to create a serious bounty to develop a suitable bitstream for all these free available fpga's
floating around. There are some very talented verilog/vhdl coder in this community, able to archive this.
Creating a bitsream for curecoin would not only unlock tremendous computational power at a low energy footprint,
it would also send a clear message to the traditional folders outside this coin community - besides the media benefit. 

I am in and waiting for the launch...

Sure. Devs should have 1% or 2% max, like a pool

I agree that the folding system is nice and that giving folders an incentive to fold is a good one, I just question the ways you guys did it.

1. What systems are in place to prevent a dev needing money (say a family member needs a surgery) from stealing all the money from the folders?  
2. What systems are in place to show the people folding that you guys aren't siphoning more money off the top?  
3. Why 10%?  10% of all mined currency is VERY high.  What made you guys choose that number?  This is essentially a very massive premine.  One of the largest in recent memory.
4. All the magic that happens with this coin is all on the pool instead of the coin itself.  What happens if the guy who pays for that server dies or goes missing?  Not trying to be morbid but there seems to be a lot of weak links here.  
5. What happens if the pool gets ddos'd or hacked?
6. What happens if the folding server over at Stanford gets hacked or ddos'd?

And don't forget while there's a bigger picture with this coin, it's still a coin and we're on a cryptocoin forum, not a folding forum. This coin is probably a standard clone coin pretending to do something amazing but all it's doing is subsidizing potential miner profits over to folding. (and we have to trust that you'll actually do that)

I'm still going to mine this coin (I mine just about everything when it's new) but there's a lot of sketchy things about it.  One of the major draws to crypto is it's decentralized nature and you guys have almost removed that completely. I'm not trying to troll this project, rather get some questions answered and addressed.

I have been looking forward to this project for a long time, just a bit disappointed in the execution.  I'll try to shut up now and I wish you guys the best.

In regards to the development fund, I can't blame anyone for raising an eyebrow. In addition to the explanation Vorksholk provided above, I believe that everyone involved with the coin (myself included) wants to see it succeed. For me, this means that being transparent is important - both in terms of the devs holding each other accountable, and keeping people informed with how funds are used. For what it's worth, Vorksholk and I went in on buying a beefy nVidia card to give away for folding (keep your eyes peeled for details) - I hope that such is a sign of dedication and backing behind the project.

So far as what the coin offers, it's important not to lose sight of the larger picture. That is, creating an economic incentive to fold. Look at how successful the beta folding team was - we rocketed up through the ranks in a matter of a couple weeks. After launch, I wouldn't be surprised to see the CureCoin folding team out-ranking every one. And sure, it would be great if everyone would fold out of the goodness of their hearts to advance research on treating terrible diseases, but if we're able to attract people to folding with the incentive of a coin, then everybody wins - that is, we all get to be a part in creating a better future for humanity. I suppose what I'm saying is that the coin is more than the coin itself, it's everything that comes with it.

I think this is a great idea, but if the folding part could be gamed it won't last long.. also I'd say the 10% of all mined supply for devs is a bit too much

I asked some honest questions and they started attacking gridcoin.  I'm not trying to attack curecoin but if they think gridcoin is flawed they need to take a look in the mirror.  All it takes is 1 awol dev to kill this coin.  Lots of centralization here.  I believe this could be a good project, but the coin itself is most likely your standard clone coin with a massive amount going to the devs.

Look megacoin dude, and I know this is a big tangent to your posts ... The fact of the matter is that exist 400 billion $US available to renew fucking nuclear weapons and afaik never were a few million to compensate folders or BOINC participants worldwide to help find cure for cancer (provoked by the atmospheric detonation of the weapons a few decades ago, and lots of other garbage). I'm surprised that so many paid for power, burned hardware, had hassle for the altruistic or very far-sighted self-interest of folding.

Now, none of this weakens most of your points. What I have to say is that if exploits are found or discontent arises, the coin will be dead, and the devs lost their time, money, effort and cash cow. Who wants to mine, will mine other coin; who wants to fold, will do so directly. So, the burden is already on the curecoin devs to prove themselves.

In regards to the dev fund, 10% of any coin is a massive amount.  We have to trust that you'll do the right thing with it and nothing stops you from taking all the coins from the folding pool and spending those.  We all just have to trust you.  Not saying that's what you will do but the coin itself doesn't actually provide anything.  If we're speaking about flaws, I would say thats a much larger flaw as we're in a community were scams run rampant.  This coin uses as many buzzwords as it can to try and have success like XPM had, but the coin itself doesn't actually do anything.  If the dev coin devs wanted to support folding there's nothing stopping them from doing the exact same thing as curecoin.    In the gridcoin system, even if what you say is right and they can mod the client to lie about mining bionic, 100% of the coins still go to the person who mined it.  This coin leaves question marks.

I still don't think I understand why one can't just fake folding work and submit it?  Will peers be performing duplicate work to confirm?

If you change the name to " panacea"

I will support it.

*** EDIT I didnt read anything about it and none of the topic.

The dev funds are going largely towards community things, such as folding hardware giveaways, 0%-fee pools, etc. Yes, it is a coin developed around being sustainable, part of that is having a dev fund which allows the developers to spend large amounts of time on the project, as well as of course being able to further the project by providing a multitude of things for the community. Gridcoin did certainly try to innovate something, however the way they approach is is quite short-sighted. A minor client mod allows the person to not need to do any scientific computation at all and still gets 150 coins per block. We don't want to talk crap about it, but it has a pretty large inherent flaw: users don't need to do any scientific computation. GridCoin also doesn't (currently) take into count GPU usage, which is the major general computing workhourse of today.

At the end of the day, if adopted, CureCoin will cause some pretty massive folding computation, and while doing so will create a coin backed by ASIC mining. It's not a perfect system, and neither is Bitcoin. The dev fund, sure, will in some shape pay developers, but its purpose is to make the coin a sustainable project with a strong community foothold.

But curecoin is just basically devcoin.. am I missing something?  Gridcoin at least actually tried to innovate something.  I mean you guys are kinda talking crap about gridcoin but this coin doesn't actually do anything at all.  Not to mention the massive 10% going straight to your pockets.