Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2018, 11:01:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 86 »
181  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: | ANN | Espers [ESP] | New Algo | New Features In Development | Reverse-ICO | on: April 14, 2016, 06:52:44 PM
Need turotial step by step  how to mine here Wink
https://www.vultr.com/

Several users have requested a Linux compile guide.
We are in the process of creating one. Excuse the delay we are working as quickly as possible. This should be completed today.

Here ya go:

Code:
sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install build-essential libtool autotools-dev autoconf pkg-config libssl-dev
sudo apt-get install libboost-all-dev
sudo apt-get install libdb++-dev
sudo apt-get install git

git clone https://github.com/CryptoCoderz/Espers/

cd Espers/src
mkdir obj
chmod -R 777 leveldb
make -f makefile.unix -j32

That works for Ubuntu 14.04. Wallets aren't portable because of libdb version.
182  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Download + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 28, 2016, 02:55:58 AM
Hey everyone, here's SigmaX Beta 2: http://1.curecoinmirror.com/sigmax/SigmaXTestnetBeta2.zip and source is also available both in the zip file and on github: https://github.com/Vorksholk/SigmaX

This release fixes the transaction generation code (you can now send transactions), block syncing code (fixed recursion bug with the block queue), and adds an equality test for transactions to eliminate invalid blocks created by network "reverb" where the same transaction gets included multiple times in a block.

As usual, let me know if you have any bugs. While the old testnet client v1 will work with the new daemon, a small modification was also made to the miner to fix the way it handles block formatting with transactions, so you need to use the updated miner as well. Source code for the client, daemon, and miner are all in the zip, Github only has the important code (the daemon).
183  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Download + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 28, 2016, 02:53:35 AM
how many coins are actual existing?
coinmarketcap show the premined folding pot included

is it around 7 million really existing now or more?



Back of napkin math is ~7 million curecoins in actual circulation.
184  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Download + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 25, 2016, 10:21:02 PM
Is there a maximum number of coins?

The PoW/Folding mintage schedule can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BY-ezmmVbooFwa3dzJZowpYmxEu9HgO2o5FeR7Evc-U/edit#gid=0. The maximum number of coins isn't a fixed quantity due to PoS, but the maximum float the network can reach anytime in the next decade hovers around 30m.
185  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Download + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 25, 2016, 10:18:47 PM
ok looks like better back into laboratory with that code only have a few selected alpha testers

u scare people away with actual state of software

this open testnet now do more harm than good

any testing feedback u need like 20 selected tester can give u too

without losing reputation as happens now

normal crowd have difficulties to see a alpha testnet as what it is

i would only go open in  a very stable close to release beta  stage


Perhaps the term 'beta' should have been reserved for a more polished release, there's still fairly significant development before an actual launch of SigmaX, but we wanted to indicate the large reorganization of the core code since the latest cc2.0 alpha.
186  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Download + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 22, 2016, 05:08:04 PM
Found a few bugs with the public testnet:
-Transactions can get stuck in the pending transaction container
-Stack overflow due to some semi-recursive behavior in block addition having to do with the blockQueue (demoed in techbyte's screenshot)

Not sure if someone purposely submitted a malicious block (which, if someone did, thanks! That's one of the major goals of testnet is testing extraneous conditions), or whether this is a result of some block malformed by the miner, but either way it needs to be fixed in the daemon. For now, I've removed that broken block (which was numbered 38?) from the main seed node.

The stack overflow error is pretty simple, basically a block that's ahead of the current longest chain is added to a queue, which is useful when syncing with the network to handle blocks that come into the client out-of-order, to prevent needless refetching. However, the block queue is tried when a block is added, so we call addBlock(some block), and then it sees the block in the queue (38, which is 10 above the current chain right now) and calls addBlock(block_38), which itself calls addBlock(block_38) until it overflows. So that bug should just be a matter of pulling the block queue attempts out to the addBlockAndSave() feeder method, so that it only gets called when a new block is being introduced to the Blockchain environment, rather than recursively suiciding.

I'll have more time to work on this tomorrow.
187  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Launch + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 22, 2016, 07:18:39 AM
The first beta of SigmaX TESTNET is available: http://1.curecoinmirror.com/sigmax/SigmaXTestnetBeta1.zip

As usual, this isn't mining for profit. These testnet coins are worthless.

Expect stuff to be broken. Currently, the miner dies after it gets one block, I'm way too tired to troubleshoot multithreaded applications, so that's on the docker for the next few days.
Try to break stuff, let me know when it does.

The download contains the daemon, command-line client, and the miner. On Windows, you can just double-click. On linux/mac, open a terminal, cd to the containing directory, and use "java -jar xxx.jar" where xxx.jar is the jarfile you want to run.

If you want to compile the source yourself, the source for all of the jar files are in a folder titled "Source."

Thanks for testing!!

Many thanks to Vorksholk for making the time to release this tonight! I just downloaded the link and fired it up, I was actually able to mine a few blocks without a crash. Give it a try and see what you think. As he had mentioned expect some bugs in the miner for this initial release ( just restart it if it crashes ). To find your address, just go into the folder that will be created in the same directory as the java files, the directory name in there will be your SigmaXcoin address. Post your addresses so we can send some transactions  Smiley

Congratulations to Vorksholk for pushing out new code!  

After downloading and unzipping, I tried to run the client by double-clicking SigmaXTestnetClientv1.0.0b1.jar on my Windows 10 computer within Windows Explorer (Exploder!) , but the cursor just whirs for a moment, then nothing happens.  Am I missing something?

I get the same result for SigmaXTestnetDaemonv1.0.0b1.jar and SigmaXTestnetMinerv1.0.0b1.jar.



Does the command line stay open?
188  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Launch + Crowd Sale Active Now! on: March 22, 2016, 05:26:28 AM
The first beta of SigmaX TESTNET is available: http://1.curecoinmirror.com/sigmax/SigmaXTestnetBeta1.zip

As usual, this isn't mining for profit. These testnet coins are worthless.

Expect stuff to be broken. Currently, the miner dies after it gets one block, I'm way too tired to troubleshoot multithreaded applications, so that's on the docker for the next few days.
Try to break stuff, let me know when it does.

The download contains the daemon, command-line client, and the miner. On Windows, you can just double-click. On linux/mac, open a terminal, cd to the containing directory, and use "java -jar xxx.jar" where xxx.jar is the jarfile you want to run.

If you want to compile the source yourself, the source for all of the jar files are in a folder titled "Source."

Thanks for testing!!
189  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - 3/21/2016 SigmaXcoin Beta Launch + Curecoin Crowd Sales ! on: March 22, 2016, 01:06:51 AM
any word when the snap shot date is yet?

The snapshot will probably be done on a weekly basis after SigmaX launch, continuing for a year. The first one won't be until SigmaX launches, which won't be until Curecoin 2.0 launches, so fairly far away.
190  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 20, 2016, 11:16:44 PM
So, status update:

In the next ~24 hours, we're gonna release a testnet of SigmaX, which will be using a CPU-mined SHA256. I really like the idea of hard-drive mining, so I'm aiming to switch out the SHA256 to hard-drive mining for SigmaX's next testnet release. We'll do a bit of testing on this thread first, and when it seems ready we'll make a separate thread dedicated to SigmaX.
191  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 20, 2016, 11:15:04 PM
i'm against having CC1, SigmaX and CC1 holder only getting small portion and waiting for it forever in a slow distribution (we already waited for 2 years)
besides SigmaX and CC1 might devalue each other because they will need to share same marketcap
and then CC2 will devalue CC1 and SigmaX
we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2) ?

and about open source. of course it must be open source even if someone fork it...
try to fork BTC, ETH, DASH.. you will probably not have their success with a fork
if someone want to fork it even gives your software more power. when its so good that other developers are using it

about 'boat missing' in every coin/asset/share/stock/whatever if not buying/mining when the price is low... it mean missing the train
and CURE is cheap for a long time
for any new curecoin coin related i would want 1:1 swap/snapshot... and upon release, without delay.. again we wait forever already and don't want to wait another forever Smiley

I haven't followed for a long time cure coin and to be honest I don't know where you guys stand. I just wanted to mention that because I really like the idea of Cure coin and I believe it is actually one of the few coins worth wasting electricity to mine if you guys for some reason decide to move from POW to POS I would consider moving to DPOS instead (Delegate Proof of Stake) and move your chain to Bitshares.

I think curecoin can benefit in many ways from integrating bitshares technology. Much less cost, more benefits, faster transactions. Maybe consider issuing a derivative asset in the bitshares blockchain such as bitCurecoin..Or if you want to raise funds for your project, IPO,ICO etc using bitshares is an easy and effective way.Just present your idea and plan in bitsharestalk forum, issue an User asset coin and ask for funding.You may be surprised by the positive responses..

Just some thoughts...

FLDC is doing something similar, but on Counterparty platform
(without any ICO for now...)


To clarify a few items: CC1 and CC2 coins are equivalent, neither network will be in any form of competition with the other, CC2 is just an extremely-involved hard-fork, and CC1 converts (and is burned in the process) to CC2.

So there are really two coins we are talking about: Curecoin and SigmaX. There shouldn't be a significant overlap between the two considering markets, since SigmaX is designed to close the hole in the market that CC2 leaves behind (decentralized PoW-based solution).

For CC2, all CC1 coins will be (at the holder's leisure) available for immediate, 1:1 conversion to CC2. The SigmaX idea is that, regardless of whether they are still holding coins on CC1 or have moved to CC2, they would receive SigmaX for holding their Curecoin on a weekly (?) basis for the payout period.

I agree--Ideally we'd just launch CC2, and have that be that. But since it isn't difficult work for someone to fork CC2 to create a PoW-based blockchain, and since there is market incentive to do so, it seems to be in Curecoin's best interest to be the provider of that inevitable PoW blockchain.

we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2)
I completely agree. I'm reading last two pages of this thread and still does not understanding why do we need a new cryptocurrency? I know everyone want get some bonus when he is just holding curecoin but I strongly doubt that it is worth doing some SigmaX.

It basically comes down to this: There's a fairly large portion of the cryptocurrency community who don't believe in the security assurances of a certificate blockchain, so they'll want a PoW-based chain. CC2 brings enough improvements and new technology that there's incentives for people to fork CC2, remove certificates, and add traditional PoW. Since someone will eventually do it, we figure that the Curecoin ecosystem mind as well benefit from it by creating the PoW-chain, giving a large portion of it to Curecoin holders, and using it to incentivize Curecoin folding for the distribution period.

Ideally we would just have Curecoin 2.0, but there's no way to "lock down" the code (especially in the spirit of open-source, trustworthy software), and the market incentives for a quantum-resistant, mini-blockchain PoW crypto would cause someone to make their own, at which point the Curecoin ecosystem doesn't benefit at all.

Glad to see this project is still alive and Curecoin 2.0 is on its way.  Smiley

I see the reasoning behind the SigmaX, and just wanted to say (even though I don't own 10% of the Cure coins or anything) I think you should go ahead with it, and just give some % of it (maybe 10%-ish) to the people folding. It should be some % that is small enough that it doesn't turn people away/make someone fork it anyway, but still add incentive to/reward folders. And rather than do some large premine (which might also cause disinterest/forking), just give the folders their share as the new SigmaX is created/mined.

It should definitely not take away from GPU power to mine the SigmaX (obviously), but if it takes CPU power I don't see that as a big deal. (Isn't all the folding done on GPUs? Or can some of the WUs only be done by CPUs for some reason?) And it would probably be good to avoid ASIC mining if you can since they are so wasteful and not to mention inaccessible to average joe, but I don't know what options would be left if you take away GPUs and possibly CPUs.

Just my 2 million satoshis. Take it for what you will.

Thanks! This is basically where we are at--large giveaway of SigmaX to Curecoin holders from some time-release mechanism (either time-locked transactions or a block subsidy system). Balancing the premine percentage is certainly important--too much and we turn the PoW crowd away to their own solution, too small and there's no reason to even develop SigmaX because it doesn't benefit the Curecoin ecosystem. We're entertaining the idea of a 1:1 payout for all circulating Curecoins, currently.

CPU power is a tough cookie to crack in such a way that GPUs aren't useful too. A lot of GPU-resistant hashing algorithms are memory-hard, but as GPUs evolve with faster RAM, this gap closes. As well, the best GPU-resistant algorithms I've seen essentially put GPUs and CPUs on equal computational footing, which results in people still using GPUs to mine (primary example: cryptonight). ASICs aren't great either... centralization, high-electrical usage, high cost-of-entry.

The only option we are left with without GPUs, CPUs, and ASICs would be hard-drive based mining (such as BURST), which is certainly a viable option.

wonder what time scale we're talking about now?

Initial release of SigmaX testnet (using CPU-bound SHA-256 initially) in the next 24 hours. Based on how that performs, we'll set a timeline for tidying up the shared code between the two currencies, and subsequent launch of cc2.0.
192  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 18, 2016, 12:27:10 AM
I haven't followed for a long time cure coin and to be honest I don't know where you guys stand. I just wanted to mention that because I really like the idea of Cure coin and I believe it is actually one of the few coins worth wasting electricity to mine if you guys for some reason decide to move from POW to POS I would consider moving to DPOS instead (Delegate Proof of Stake) and move your chain to Bitshares.

I think curecoin can benefit in many ways from integrating bitshares technology. Much less cost, more benefits, faster transactions. Maybe consider issuing a derivative asset in the bitshares blockchain such as bitCurecoin..Or if you want to raise funds for your project, IPO,ICO etc using bitshares is an easy and effective way.Just present your idea and plan in bitsharestalk forum, issue an User asset coin and ask for funding.You may be surprised by the positive responses..

Just some thoughts...

Thanks for the kind words! We're not opposed to using some ideas from DPOS (like a consensus mechanism to decide on block timing and block size), but our goals for cc2.0/SigmaX (quantum-resistant signatures, mini-blockchain, etc.) can't be done as a Bitshares asset, since we wouldn't control the lower-level portion of the network.
193  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 18, 2016, 12:06:03 AM
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



you made a good point...
will be fair if there will be bigger amount given to Curecoiners (instead of <%1... >1000% of yearly mining), like ethereum did with the pre-sale, distributed amount of coins which would take years to mine.
curecoin is not expensive (not far from ATL right now), so a bigger share for folders is fair.

another thing that worries me: if the new coin is GPU mineable, it might take away power from folding@home
would be better to switch directly to CC2.0 on a testnet, and then CC2.0 mainnet. and don't do the POW SigmaX at all

At this point, it looks like SigmaX, if released, will have a significant portion (around 50%?) distributed to folders. Probably on some form of time-release schedule.

The GPU mining could take power away from actual research. Perhaps we could use traditional SHA-256 instead, so that only ASICs, which aren't capable of doing any useful scientific calculations, are used for the network's security.

I think if you allow asic u restrict the distribution and would certainly need to consider splitting the pow into channels so that its viable to use cpu/gpu and asic. And I certainly would steer away from 50% premine in favor of block subsidy paid weekly perhaps to a time locked address. Now this would in effect widen the distribution across folders & miners, while I can certainly see that some might shift away from folding to get some SigmaX you have less incentive to do so when you can earn CC and SigmaX by folding. Even if the block subsidy is 50% its not a premine more of a "founders fee" if you will.

Edit: It may also pay to incentivize folders further, perhaps it could be done by splitting the block subsidy to pay some portion to folders, for example 40% to Curecoin holders 10% to folders. It could be distributed to the folders via the CC folding pool. Similarly it might be possible to use CC2.0 as a means of getting miners interested in folding or at least CC in general by having a small block subsidy of CC2.0 (1-2%?) paid out to SigmaX holders. This way both coins would be tied together and holders in one coin can gather into both economies but with the balance in the favor of CC long term supporters but in such a way that no one is left out because of the opportunity over time to become a supporter simply by owning some of either currency. If subsidy was paid daily/weekly it would certainly help stimulate activity on the blockchain which would be perfect for testing out how the new software performs.


At this point the predominant idea seems to be some form of subsidy or time-locked coins paid out to holders of Curecoin, rather than a lump sum at the beginning. As such, for the entire distribution period, folding to get Curecoin would also earn SigmaX, because the folding payouts would be eligible for payouts of SigmaX.

Making SigmaX pure SHA-256D shouldn't (at least, in the first year or whatever the distribution period is) significantly restrict distribution, because people can still fold with GPUs to earn Curecoin, which in turn pays out SigmaX weekly.

Paying out some cc2.0 coins to SigmaX folders is an interesting idea. It'd probably be for a fairly short period of time, since we don't want to have control over the distribution of either currency after the dispersion period.

I agree absolutely with Vorksholk that the second coin in the form of SigmaX, without certificates is absolutely essential to slow down the certain proliferation after posting the code to Github.  Is it possible technically to let people copy the new coin, but first code in permanently that in order to use their copy, they have to have a SigmaX or CC 2 wallet, and burn a small amount of SigmaX or CC 2 every time they utilize a certain amount of their new coin?  This would let many people make their own copies, but would pay a small rent to SigmaX or CC 2 by reducing the outstanding balances of SigmaX or CC2.  I could see a small government making, say, ParaguayCoin from CC2, then issue its own certificates, similar to how the FAH could utilize it, but has not decided to yet. This would give the government control over its own new coin minting, but have the advantage of all the great tech from CC 2 without the initial work.  Of course the burning of SigmaX or CC2 from use of the newly created coins would help support or propel its value.

There are a lot of ideas flying, and I think that the discussion is healthy, overall.  My basic hope is to attempt to have CC 2 and SigmaX mimic the best societies economically, as far as possible.  This proposal is that both CC 2 and SigmaX be set up the same way, as outlined below.  In my view, a perfect coin might have characteristics that look something like this, and has zero pre-mine:

A. Proof of Human Work and Ongoing Expenses for the Development Team: Reward the developer team, which is composed of software developers, marketers, web design, occasional professional services, and people to promote and coordinate integration into the thousands of software applications already out there.  Everything that might be on the income and expense statement of a typical software firm has to be covered by this, given enough value for the new coins.     Bitcoin would have avoided many of its current problems with this in place from the beginning.  This team contributes technical and human expertise, but does not necessarily bring investment or capital.  Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.

B. Proof of Work: Reward a wide variety of mining types if possible, technically.  ASICs, GPUs, and CPUs and possibly hard drive space and network bandwidth all in equal measure.  The idea here is to keep everyone off balance, so that a low cost manufacturer of one technology or cheap electricity does not have a great advantage over people with other technologies.  The POW people bring capital and some technical skills.  Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.

C. Proof of Stake: Reward the purchase of coins in a modest way to help secure the network, so that one has to buy a lot of coins if one is going to try to make major changes to the network. The POS people bring primarily capital to the equation.  Mining proposed: 20% for first 2 years, 33.33% after two years.

D. Proof of Support: Reward the people who own CC 1 as of the snapshot date.  People have been buying, folding, or ASIC securing the network and the devs for 2 years now.  Those who have coins supported the development team in numerous ways.  They should be rewarded for their risk, encouragement, and for not selling their CC 1.   The Proof of Support people brought capital, support, faith, ideas, feedback, risk tolerance, and obtained their CC 1 coins in a variety of ways.  Mining proposed: 40% for first 2 years, nothing after two years.

Please notice that in this proposal, the CC 1 holders and the POW miners get less than orginally proposed, but the dev team gets a lot more, and POS is now in the equation.  I am convinced that the dev team should be well-compensated, but am more flexible about the ratios between POW versus POS.  Keep in mind that POS uses petty amounts of electricity, while POW uses large amounts.

Unfortunately, coding something into the source code that requires a burn of SigmaX or Curecoin for the operation of their network is impossible--a programmer can just alter the source code.

A 20%+ development fund will certainly turn users away--we'll probably do no development fund on SigmaX, and a few percent subsidy on cc2.0. Using hard drive space as a mining mechanism in SigmaX is certainly interesting--perhaps we could follow in the footsteps of BURST in the PoW design. We are leaning away from CPU/GPU mining on SigmaX since we believe those are better utilized for folding on cc2.0, although ASIC-dominated networks do seem more centralized since the barrier to entry is higher. Using hard drives and ASICs seems to alleviate that issue somewhat.

SigmaX probably won't have PoS (or will have a neutered version of PoS, to alleviate general concerns about security holes in PoS systems). Curecoin 2.0 will have the neutered PoS system, which doesn't involve stake weight, and fits into a "jigsaw" blockchain to make network forks using PoS impossible. As for the mintage, we'll probably go fairly low (1-3% yearly interest), since larger interest rates punish users who actively spend and accept the token (by making it deflationary), and the interest rate is cumulative, which results in PoS overshadowing other mintage mechanisms if not carefully planned in the long run.

For your proof of support, that's almost exactly the current plan for SigmaX, except that the snapshot will be weekly, so every week for a year or so, we'll pay out some amount of SigmaX (if we did a year distribution, it would be 1/52 of the total payout weekly) to holders of Curecoin based on their current balance. This serves a few purposes: users can fold with CPUs/GPUs for the first year and still receive SigmaX for their work (earn Curecoin directly, which then earns SigmaX weekly), and encourages users to invest in Curecoin if they want SigmaX. We might do a hybrid solution, which does a decently large payout based on a snapshot block of cc1.0 before SigmaX launches, and then smaller weekly payouts thereafter. The total amount paid out over that distribution period will be about 40-50% of the SigmaX network's eventual float. Any input on this?

For the Curecoin PoS, we might do a decaying PoS rate, so that during the first year, the interest rate is x%, then the year after is 2/3x%, etc. to kickstart PoS, but ensure that it doesn't overshadow other mintage methods in the long-run, since it is cumulative.

If the point of SigmaX is to provide a more decentralized form of CC2.0 doesn't making a premine any greater than 1-2% contradict this goal? I would be more in favor of a block subsidy to be paid over the life of the coin, this could have the added bonus of encouraging ppl to buy CC to get SigmaX from snapshots. This would also avoid the centralized nature of a larger upfront premine. Also for SigmaX to be an effective test bed for CC2.0 it does need to be an active blockchain I fear any large premine would scare away potential users thus deducting further from the intention that SigmaX be an effective test bed.
Also I would like to know if the devs intend to ensure that the CC1.0 premine for folders isn't eligible for any initial conversion towards SigmaX.

That was certainly our initial reason for the 1% premine idea. If we go for a 50% premine or similar, it would interfere with a more "pure" distribution model, but the network's security is still decentralized, since all blocks are PoW. If we do a large premine/distribution to Curecoin holders, then it would have to be time-released to avoid flooding the initial supply. Whether that means coins are paid out to addresses but "frozen" until a certain block, or a block subsidy is aggregated and paid out weekly, there's a few options. As you point out, this would add additional demand for Curecoin, since people would be receiving SigmaX for holding it, which is certainly supportive of the Curecoin ecosystem.

The hope with the large payout to Curecoin holders is that it can be done transparently (so people won't feel they "missed the boat," since the idea will be announced in advance, and they can buy Curecoin if they want to get SigmaX that way), and that the continual security of the network doesn't depend on the distribution, since it is pure PoW. For sure, it isn't perfect by any means.

The only coins eligible for the "conversion" (trying to find a better word, since people keep their Curecoin) are ones that have been paid out to folders, ones paid out to traditional miners through the normal block reward, and dev funds that have already been paid out. None of the premine that hasn't been paid out to folders will be eligible for conversion. So basically any coins that end users have earned will be eligible, none of the cold storage premine (remaining dev funds + pending folding rewards) will be eligible. Dev funds that have already been paid out (according to the initial mintage schedule) are a grey area. Perhaps those could be converted and reserved for bounties and the like.

Missed the boat? they should have been here with us mining, folding and buying for 2 years. SigmaX is from curecoin so there is no missing the boat about it really. Shame it can't be closed source. I mean if you spend 2 years coding and working for someone just to press copy and paste that's too bad. A lot of communities are closed source now until they get a few versions ahead. Fuseleer is a Java guru isn't he? can he not close it up for us for now ? or make it hard to reverse engineer it. I never understood why more people didn't get on board with this project anyway.



It is unfortunate that years of code can be copied and pasted, but in general the community follows the original developers unless they have a good reason not to (like a fork that offers decentralized PoW). The Ethereum forks aren't getting much attention despite the recent explosion in Ethereum, since Ethereum has the first mover advantage, and also has the development expertise behind it. Personally I believe that if we create both Curecoin 2.0 and SigmaX, we've got most of the community's desires covered, so there isn't a large spot for a fork to capitalize on, since both those who believe in the research-based PoW and those who only believe in decentralized PoW both have an option.

Totally agree about the "missed boat"--and those who weren't aware of Curecoin before can fold some now and throughout the distribution period to get SigmaX as well, which would benefit the Curecoin ecosystem Smiley

We could remove the existing code from Github and only release it upon actual launch, and there's also ways to obfuscate code to make reverse-engineering harder, but neither are really in the spirit of the open-source cryptocurrency community, and obfuscating just makes the job harder. There's also advantages to having easily-reversable code--people with knowledge of Java can easily verify that executables we provide are safe. The problem about a future decentralized-PoW fork is mainly a symptom of a larger issue--that there's a large open spot in the market for that currency that Curecoin just doesn't cover. By providing both Curecoin 2.0 and SigmaX, I think we reasonably close in on both sides of the market, so forks would have to do something more innovative and beneficial to the community to succeed, which gets back to the fundamentals of open source.
194  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 16, 2016, 07:54:08 AM
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



you made a good point...
will be fair if there will be bigger amount given to Curecoiners (instead of <%1... >1000% of yearly mining), like ethereum did with the pre-sale, distributed amount of coins which would take years to mine.
curecoin is not expensive (not far from ATL right now), so a bigger share for folders is fair.

another thing that worries me: if the new coin is GPU mineable, it might take away power from folding@home
would be better to switch directly to CC2.0 on a testnet, and then CC2.0 mainnet. and don't do the POW SigmaX at all

At this point, it looks like SigmaX, if released, will have a significant portion (around 50%?) distributed to folders. Probably on some form of time-release schedule.

The GPU mining could take power away from actual research. Perhaps we could use traditional SHA-256 instead, so that only ASICs, which aren't capable of doing any useful scientific calculations, are used for the network's security.
195  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 16, 2016, 07:42:35 AM
If the point of SigmaX is to provide a more decentralized form of CC2.0 doesn't making a premine any greater than 1-2% contradict this goal? I would be more in favor of a block subsidy to be paid over the life of the coin, this could have the added bonus of encouraging ppl to buy CC to get SigmaX from snapshots. This would also avoid the centralized nature of a larger upfront premine. Also for SigmaX to be an effective test bed for CC2.0 it does need to be an active blockchain I fear any large premine would scare away potential users thus deducting further from the intention that SigmaX be an effective test bed.
Also I would like to know if the devs intend to ensure that the CC1.0 premine for folders isn't eligible for any initial conversion towards SigmaX.

That was certainly our initial reason for the 1% premine idea. If we go for a 50% premine or similar, it would interfere with a more "pure" distribution model, but the network's security is still decentralized, since all blocks are PoW. If we do a large premine/distribution to Curecoin holders, then it would have to be time-released to avoid flooding the initial supply. Whether that means coins are paid out to addresses but "frozen" until a certain block, or a block subsidy is aggregated and paid out weekly, there's a few options. As you point out, this would add additional demand for Curecoin, since people would be receiving SigmaX for holding it, which is certainly supportive of the Curecoin ecosystem.

The hope with the large payout to Curecoin holders is that it can be done transparently (so people won't feel they "missed the boat," since the idea will be announced in advance, and they can buy Curecoin if they want to get SigmaX that way), and that the continual security of the network doesn't depend on the distribution, since it is pure PoW. For sure, it isn't perfect by any means.

The only coins eligible for the "conversion" (trying to find a better word, since people keep their Curecoin) are ones that have been paid out to folders, ones paid out to traditional miners through the normal block reward, and dev funds that have already been paid out. None of the premine that hasn't been paid out to folders will be eligible for conversion. So basically any coins that end users have earned will be eligible, none of the cold storage premine (remaining dev funds + pending folding rewards) will be eligible. Dev funds that have already been paid out (according to the initial mintage schedule) are a grey area. Perhaps those could be converted and reserved for bounties and the like.
196  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 16, 2016, 06:57:11 AM
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



SigmaX won't have any dev fund, but how do people feel about this idea otherwise? Releasing them at the same time probably isn't practical given our team size, but they could be within a week or two of eachother, probably.

why not close source it for now so no forking is possible?

We still need people able to test on testnet, and the issue is mainly a PoW fork of the finished cc2.0 code, which would have to be open sourced. Sad And to top it off, Java is ridiculously easy to reverse engineer. Which for open-source projects is great since people can open the compiled binaries and verify that nothing's wrong with them, but would make closed-source even harder.

On a sidenote, would people be interested in some sort of Q & A livestream in the near future?
197  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 16, 2016, 06:02:28 AM
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.

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 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.


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.

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.
-snip-


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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



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.

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

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?
198  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Sia - Decentralized Storage - Working Beta - Currency has been released on: March 15, 2016, 11:41:51 PM
For anyone who isn't on the slack community or IRC (already posted there), here's an optimized CUDA miner. Gets >40% performance improvement on pre-Maxwell, and ~10% improvement on Maxwell GPUs.

I have source and binaries here: https://github.com/Vorksholk/Sia-CUDA-Miner
KlausT also accepted my pull request and compiled his own binaries: https://github.com/KlausT/Sia-CUDA-Miner

The binaries I compiled seem to run a few percent faster (maybe due to compiler flags), but it's within an insignificant margin of error.

If you're building on Ubuntu (and have the CUDA toolkit and the cURL development library installed, of course), something like this should work for 6xx and 7xx cards (plus the Titan, Titan Black, Titan Z, Quadro K5xxx/K6xxx, Tesla K10/20X/40/80):
Code:
g++ network.cpp -std=c++11 -c -lcurl
nvcc -c -std=c++11 -gencode=arch=compute_30,code=\"sm_30,compute_30\" --optimize 3 -Xptxas -dlcm=ca gpu-cuda-miner.cu -lcurl
nvcc -std=c++11 -gencode=arch=compute_30,code=\"sm_30,compute_30\" gpu-miner.cpp network.o gpu-cuda-miner.o -lcurl -o gpu-miner

and Maxwell + future:
Code:
g++ network.cpp -std=c++11 -c -lcurl
nvcc -c -std=c++11 -gencode=arch=compute_52,code=\"sm_52,compute_52\" --optimize 3 -Xptxas -dlcm=ca gpu-cuda-miner.cu -lcurl
nvcc -std=c++11 -gencode=arch=compute_30,code=\"sm_52,compute_52\" gpu-miner.cpp network.o gpu-cuda-miner.o -lcurl -o gpu-miner

Note that the 750 Ti has compute capabilities 5.0, so despite being Maxwell, you'll want to use the older compilation. You can change the "30" in compute_30 and sm_30 to another number depending on your specific card. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA, and just remove the period from the correct compute capability version that corresponds to your card. Older 5xx cards are compute 2.0 or 2.1.

For reference, a 980 Ti with an overclock to 1500 MHz gets 1850 MH/s.
199  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 15, 2016, 11:24:50 PM
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?

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.
200  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin -Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. June 11 2015 Client update on: March 15, 2016, 10:35:29 PM
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.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 86 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!