Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2018, 09:48:59 PM *
News: ♦♦ Bitcoin Core users must update to 0.16.3 [Torrent]. More info.
 
  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 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 86 »
501  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 25, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
I'm back from the investigation of the foldingcoin.
1: It's no "coin" it's a token without any exchange.
2: Only online strorage.
3: No solid dev team.
4: No interest by folders, I was 90% of the folding power.
5: All tokens in one place distributed once a week.

GO CureCoin!
//Aboy68

Please make curecoin 2.0 a distributed solid coin, we will only have one chance to fix mayor issues miners did not like.
Please add features pure buyers would like to have!
Thats the plan! Any other features you want to suggest for other buyers?
502  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 24, 2014, 02:06:22 AM
I bought into Curecoin when it was .00190000 BTC. I'm still holding, but its current value is 3.94% of the purchase price. Is Curecoin going to be completely abandoned for Curecoin 2, or whatever it is to be called? It feels like I've ridden this one pretty much to the bottom.

Sorry you bought high! Nope, all Curecoin 1.0 coins will transfer to Curecoin 2.0, though there may be a coin conversion step due to the major protocol changes. Smiley
503  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 23, 2014, 02:30:07 AM
I'm going to throw some hash power at this. What plans do you have for the future of Cure?

They are purely ideas that we are tweaking and researching, but some points of mention:
-Quantum-computing-resistant signing algorithm (thinking Lamport)
-Peer-to-peer layered-encrypted traffic
-Multisignature and round-signature addresses
-Wallet ease of use for merchants (rather than continually pining the client "Did I get a transaction on <address?>" you can tell the client "When you get a transaction larger than <amount> on address <address> do <something>"
-Certificate-based blockchain (universities or other entities providing meaningful distributed computing projects issue certificates to users for work done, which are valid for creating blocks on the curecoin network, and could be used to do distributed folding "pools")
-Wallet which enables the locking/unlocking of specific addresses or address pools
-Distributed blockchain storage (where clients, using a simple AI, pool together, each holding certain parts of the blockchain, and redundantly querrying other peers for blocks that they don't have stored)
-A wallet in 'server' mode which would allow any simple 'thin client' to store only private/public keys, and to query a full wallet for txhistory, and to submit transactions signed client-side to the network
-A contract system with built-in software checksums (Two users want to make a contract for a service. One builds a program that verifies the service has been completed. The other verifies this external program is valid. The checksum of the program is taken and written into the contract. Upon either party invoking a completion request, the program is executed on both machines. If the results agree, the contract is finished. If not, then the contract can be contested and a third-party can step in and run the program and verify the result. Programs would be built in a custom scripting language built into the network. This idea is very rough, and very likely to never see prime time. It's an interesting concept though!

Anyhow, nothing above is guaranteed, but we're doing our research, writing test code, testing attack vectors, etc.

This sounds great even if I can't understand half of it.
The question is what are we doing in short time to make people buy the coin?!
Have we identified the actions/features needed to be a "buy" coin?
Or are we happy with this low attention from the community?

//Aboy68

short answer = 0

We attended the BTC:Chicago conference, talked to a ton of amazing people from all reaches of the world, and are moving forward on public development of the next version of curecoin, with a semi-decentralized computational research payout system based on certificates.
504  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 21, 2014, 11:49:49 PM
As an update to the forums, the Curecoin conference went amazingly well. You can check out a detailed post about the conference at http://www.curecoinfolding.com. One issue brought up was Bitlicenses, which I go into a mini discussion there. If you have anything you want to add to the conversation, hop onto #curecoin on freenode! We will be creating and submitting comments on the currently proposed system.
505  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 18, 2014, 04:31:52 AM
I'm going to throw some hash power at this. What plans do you have for the future of Cure?

They are purely ideas that we are tweaking and researching, but some points of mention:
-Quantum-computing-resistant signing algorithm (thinking Lamport)
-Peer-to-peer layered-encrypted traffic
-Multisignature and round-signature addresses
-Wallet ease of use for merchants (rather than continually pining the client "Did I get a transaction on <address?>" you can tell the client "When you get a transaction larger than <amount> on address <address> do <something>"
-Certificate-based blockchain (universities or other entities providing meaningful distributed computing projects issue certificates to users for work done, which are valid for creating blocks on the curecoin network, and could be used to do distributed folding "pools")
-Wallet which enables the locking/unlocking of specific addresses or address pools
-Distributed blockchain storage (where clients, using a simple AI, pool together, each holding certain parts of the blockchain, and redundantly querrying other peers for blocks that they don't have stored)
-A wallet in 'server' mode which would allow any simple 'thin client' to store only private/public keys, and to query a full wallet for txhistory, and to submit transactions signed client-side to the network
-A contract system with built-in software checksums (Two users want to make a contract for a service. One builds a program that verifies the service has been completed. The other verifies this external program is valid. The checksum of the program is taken and written into the contract. Upon either party invoking a completion request, the program is executed on both machines. If the results agree, the contract is finished. If not, then the contract can be contested and a third-party can step in and run the program and verify the result. Programs would be built in a custom scripting language built into the network. This idea is very rough, and very likely to never see prime time. It's an interesting concept though!

Anyhow, nothing above is guaranteed, but we're doing our research, writing test code, testing attack vectors, etc.
506  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 16, 2014, 06:19:59 AM
Overall the mechanics are ok, my point remain that I still struggle that on days when the stat server is down 200kPPD makes around 1000 coins which is much more compared to regular days, when stat server are up. It has a quite a gamble character. And whenever the stat server comes back the ratio is much worse.

FAH has the concept of equal points for equal scientific work (letting the discussion another that out of here). I think a similar concept should be build in the coin allocation; a pro rata allocation based in valid hours for stats update. No official stat updates, for all users, no coins.

As for the stat servers:
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=18&t=26191&start=90#p266974

Ah true, not sure if you were in IRC when we discussed this. The plan for the future is, when stats stop updating properly, payouts will stop, and then will credit everyone for the time missed when they come back online.

Missed that. Great. That's how it should be and brings a higher level of fairness in the allocation. "Case closed"

Keep folding (I'm still switching teams, busy folding life  Roll Eyes

Cheers, folding anywhere still has the same scientific benefit, even if crypto isn't involved Smiley
507  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 16, 2014, 04:04:21 AM
Nope, can't do merged mining - you need to change your team affiliation to their team.

H.


Ah, alright. So their system works much like Curecoin, currently. Disregard above mention of merged folding...
508  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 16, 2014, 12:50:39 AM

Our thoughts exactly. With the entire 20 seconds of attention I gave to reading about that project, it appears someone could fold on the curecoin team with their Couterparty address, kindof a 'merged folding' system. Don't quote me on that working though.
509  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 16, 2014, 12:49:45 AM
Overall the mechanics are ok, my point remain that I still struggle that on days when the stat server is down 200kPPD makes around 1000 coins which is much more compared to regular days, when stat server are up. It has a quite a gamble character. And whenever the stat server comes back the ratio is much worse.

FAH has the concept of equal points for equal scientific work (letting the discussion another that out of here). I think a similar concept should be build in the coin allocation; a pro rata allocation based in valid hours for stats update. No official stat updates, for all users, no coins.

As for the stat servers:
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=18&t=26191&start=90#p266974

Ah true, not sure if you were in IRC when we discussed this. The plan for the future is, when stats stop updating properly, payouts will stop, and then will credit everyone for the time missed when they come back online.
510  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 14, 2014, 04:08:29 AM
Something wrong with the current allocation concept. As per pool info the team produced 4.6M PPD, much less compared to normal day. Luck of for those who made it before the stat server stopped. Unlucky for those who's point comes in the next batch.

Really suggest to build some safety mechanism in. Right now it doesn't matter too much, but one the coin grow and big money comes in they might not accept that unbalance.

The easiest one is that 7844 points get only fully allocated when the stats server was fully active. A downtime of stat server of 12 hours should reduce the daily coins to 3922. And increase once that stat servers are back.

Kind of "cut and carry over". I know the points in PG don't get lost, they might get delayed. The same flow the "coin cake" should take


The backend software is showing a total of the correct number of points in the last round, and continues to run well, though I'm going to make some modifications tomorrow to fix a few small issues. The frontend stats.curecoinfolding.com page, which aside from time synchronization is completely independent of the actual backend server, seems to be having issues which I am looking into currently.

Here is the backend XML showing up for your account:
Quote
<user>
<username>ChristianFAH</username>
<total>9062757</total>
<gain>0</gain>
</user>

After a bit of investigating it appears due to the fact that it is scrabbling user data from the stats page for looping through an array of user scores, but it is grabbing the user scores from here: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=224497 which caps out at the top 1000 users, so the software is throwing an index out of bounds exception, of course. What's surprising is that this issue didn't come up until now.

Either way, the backend fetches stats for each user from http://fah-web2.stanford.edu/teamstats/team224497.html which doesn't have the 1000 user limit. The backend is working perfectly fine, and coins should be going out at the appropriate rate regardless of the frontend error. If this is NOT the case, please let me know.

I'll work on migrating the public pure-aesthetics frontend (stats.curecoinfolding.com) over to use http://fah-web2.stanford.edu/teamstats/team224497.html sometime tomorrow, and so all stats should be updated and working correctly there by the day after.
511  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [DSH] Dashcoin (CPU-mining, true anonymity, automated source code) on: July 07, 2014, 06:17:33 PM
I'll sell 10,000,000 Dashcoins for 0.36 BTC (0.000000036 BTC ea.) if someone is interested.
512  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 06, 2014, 04:53:07 AM
Hey guys! Work continues on conference-related stuff, but we developers are also brewing a few other elixirs of interest.

One of the ideas thrown around the virtual, coffee-stained conference table recently was the use of quantum-computer-resistant signature algorithms. Without going too deep into concepts tangentially related the matter at hand, hashing functions, due in part to the 'loss' of data that occurs during the function (Imagine a simple example of a 'secret' being the two numbers 12 and 20. A *very* simple, collision-prone, insecure method of verifying those numbers at a later point in time without storing the actual numbers would be to store some mathematical, repeatable function of the two, something such as multiplication. If a person were able to acquire the hash '240' and try to find the original inputs, they would get a ton of matching input pairs: (1, 240), (2, 120), (3, 80), ... (15, 16). This availability of collisions makes the actual function 'lossy'. Such an example is clearly an exploitable system, and is only for visualization purposes. The complex reduction, data loss, and mixing occur primarily through logical (AND, OR, XOR) operations, rolling reels of numbers effecting each other, sponge functions, etc., and make reversing an output back to an input 'impossible'.) are assumed to map inputs to realistically-unique outputs of a (usually) fixed length. As such, they are not prone to math-based attacks from quantum computing algorithms against classical computational encryption algorithms (RSA, ECDSA...).

What's so important about cryptographic signatures? For the purposes of a terribly inaccurate analogy, imagine your cryptocurrency wallets as a checkbook. You can write an amount, a destination, and a dollar value, but without your signature, the filled-out check has absolutely no ability to actually transfer currency. However, once you put your signature (which is, historically, important since they are *relatively* hard to imitate as well as hard for the signer to deny signing the check) on the check, it can be used to transfer funds. If you wrote a check for $10 to your friend but never submitted it to the bank (blockchain), the money never gets transferred. However, once the check gets cashed by your friend, the funds get transferred from your account to your friend's, and if you later deny signing the check, someone can simply show your signature. Either your signature was compromised, or you signed the document. This is known as a promise of non-repudiation. Signatures on the blockchain work to ensure that anyone can see the balance of an address (to verify you have the money you are trying to spend), but you can only spend money from an address you have control over. Asymmetrical cryptography allows for signatures to be privately generated but publicly verified.

Bitcoin addresses are formed in the following manner: address = Base58(versionByte + RIPEMD-160(SHA-256(publickey)) + SHA-256(SHA2-56(RIPEMD-160(SHA-256(publickey)))).substring(0, 4)) where + represents a concatenation operator. Fun, right? If you prefer a visual simplification:


As such, simply accepting coins at an address does not reveal your public OR private key to the network. As such, the Bitcoin network is unable to differentiate between a valid and an invalid address--the only possible sanity check is a built-in checksum as shown above (the second, partial SHA256D hash appended to the end) which helps to eliminate mistypes. However, due to the nature of hashing functions being assumed to be one-way, the only way we can prove we own such a certain address, when we decide we want to spend the coins, is to publicly reveal the public key. In the absence of an efficient way to factor large numbers (either by an *extremely* unlikely breakthrough in mathematics, or more likely through the practical implementation of Shor's algorithm (or in the case of ECDSA, a modified derivative) or another quantum-computer-algorithm), ECDSA and RSA are extremely secure. However, when very large numbers can be efficiently factored, there are serious concerns about the safety of classic computational cryptography as it exists today. The only way the Bitcoin network would be safe in the event of a quantum computer capable of factoring large numbers would be to switch to a one-time-use address system. Today, one Bitcoin address can send and receive as many transactions as desired with safety. However, due to the nature of address generation above, after the address signs one transaction, the public key is revealed, in order to prove ownership of the address. Until a valid transaction originates from an address, the public key behind the address is safely masked by one-way cryptography (hashing functions). However, upon signing a transaction and broadcasting the public key, quantum computer attacks on that address become possible.

In a post-quantum-computing environment, as soon as an address signs a transaction, and remaining coins on the address are put at risk. As such, the various methods by which Bitcoin addresses are used multiple times today (tip jars, many payment processing services, etc.) would have to transition to a system of one-time address use, which not only decreases the compressibility of the blockchain, but also acts to make the currency harder to use. Imagine having to give your workplace a new bank account to deposit for every payday...

ECDSA has several properties that make it desirable for use in efficient cryptocurrencies: small signature size, fast verification, and small public key size. Additionally, the computational power required for key generation is trivial.

Any alternative to ECDSA aimed at being quantum-computing-resistant must, to avoid blockchain bloat and computational bloat, have relatively small signatures, public keys, and be easy to verify, allowing for network growth. Under the validated assumption that cryptographic one-way algorithms such as the popular SHA-family of hashing functions are secure against quantum-computers based on their reliance on lost data rather than on mathematically-hard problems, signatures built on top of hashing algorithms inherit similar properties. One simple example of such a signature method is the Lamport Signature, which is a one-time signature.
To summarize Lamport (when used with SHA256, and where 'User' refers to a computer generating and using an address):
-> User generates 256 random inputs (preferably somewhat long, and a mix of numbers, letters, symbols, and even non-printable characters if desired)
-> User divides these 256 inputs into 128 pairs of two inputs
-> User hashes each input and stores the hash output
-> User publishes all 256 outputs to the network (for our purposes, consider this group of 256 outputs to be the public key and address!)
-> User signs away coins the network recorded as belonging to the published public key/address by:
--->User writes and hashes a transaction message (simplification: "I sign all 8.3 coins from transaction (TxID) to address (address)")
--->User lays out the SHA256 hash in binary
--->User submitts the corresponding private keys (For example, if they were signing the four bits "0110", they would submit the first (position: zero) private key from the first group, the second (position: one) from the second group, the second (position: one) from the third group, and finally the first (position: zero) from the fourth group) to the network. The network can then hash the private keys and see that they match the public keys, and can also verify that the user signed that particular message by hashing the message, and seeing that only the private keys corresponding to the binary representation of the hash of the message are published, while the others (the 2nd in the 1st set, the 1st in the 2nd set, the 1st in the 3rd set, and the 2nd in the 4th set) are not made public. If the address owner were to sign another message, he or she would have to reveal other parts of their private key, which compromises the security by allowing full sets (rather than one of two hashes in a set) to be published, allowing an attacking party to possibly forge messages. As such, Lamport signatures are one-way, one-use.

Lamport signatures have two obvious shortcommings: huge public key sizes, and one-time use.

However, the basic logic lamport signatures are based on can be extended in such a way that a Lamport-esque signature scheme can be reduced to a *very* small public key (in some capacity smaller than ECDSA) as well as having reasonable signature sizes (larger than ECDSA, but not large enough to be impractical for blockchain usage). Such implementations use merkle trees to make signatures able to sign huge amounts of transactions (think 2^20 to 2^40, far beyond practical application, and thus not limiting the effectiveness of an address generation/transaction signing algorithm pair) while only adding much size to the blockchain when actually creating a transaction, and when creating a transaction adding what iss still a manageable amount of data. Such a system would allow the network to be resistant to quantum computing attacks against every implemented cryptographic method, and would make addresses reusable, while not drastically increasing the footprint of the blockchain. Optimized versions of such a signing algorithm (such as CMSS and GMSS) offer all of the above properties, and, given an efficient, cryptographically-sane, time-tested hashing algorithm, are extremely secure. GMSS, currently, is mildly impractical due to the time taken to generate private keys, and thus CMSS is the valid, considered option of the pair.

The hashing algorithm can be comprised of several chained hashing algorithms, so that if some of the hashing algorithms were ever cracked, or at the least attacked with some form of reduction function, the network would still be secure, as there would still stand unbreakable links in the signing algorithm due to the unbroken hashing algorithms. For a simplification, imagine I have the ability to perform four processes on a string. I do all four in order, twice, such that I take the output of process one, put it into process two, take that output, into process three, from three to four, then from four to one to two to three back to four, so they are stacked and none end the chain without also appearing elsewhere in the chain. A mild acquaintance of mine knows how to reverse processes four and two, but is unable to undo processes three and one. Given the output, he is able to reverse it from 8 stages to seven stages of length (or how the string of text I had appeared once it went 1->2->3->4->1->2->3 when it was about to enter process four again). From here, he would have to reverse process three in order to continue on. Since he is unable to do so, he is unable to reverse the entire function, despite having a fully functional attack against one of the components. Likewise, if several hashing algorithms are chained together (such as is done in X11/X13/X14/X15/X<your weekly flavor>), multiple algorithms can be broken without causing insecurities in the currency.

While the isn't the guaranteed be-all-end-all solution to the quantum computing problem, lamport-based signature schemes and other similar schemes based only on the cryptographic integrity intrinsically provided by hashing functions is a promising next step in future-proofing cryptocurrency networks. Such a system also opens the interesting possibility of a tradeoff between computational power to generate a private key, and the security/size of the keypair, though the security offered by a default-parameter implementation of aforementioned algorithms would provide more than sufficient security.
513  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 03, 2014, 10:38:32 PM
Bit of a progress update, we have finalized most of our materials for the Bitcoin:Chicago conference, here's a sample of the poster:

Snipped Image: http://curecoinfolding.com/forumpreview2.png


This is awesome! Are you all going to be getting video of the conference to share as well? I won't be able to go, but I'd love to see how it all works out.

We'll certainly be putting up some content from the conference, video footage from those usually doesn't turn out too great, but we'll see Smiley
514  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: July 03, 2014, 05:38:22 PM
Bit of a progress update, we have finalized most of our materials for the Bitcoin:Chicago conference, here's a sample of the poster:


515  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 27, 2014, 06:45:20 PM
Quick Dev Update:

We had a G+ Chat for a few hours to hammer down the conference details. We are planning on having two standing banners, and a table runner. FifthGB made an awesome Android informational app you can download here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.conduit.app_f160cb96dde1445793dc95ed77265ae3.app and I'll be working with him to get it onto the iOS store as well. Bitcoin conference reservation is set in stone, and the Curecoin booth will be open for business. Smiley

In other news, I'm putting the finishing touches on a simple visually-oriented document outlining how a certificate-based blockchain will work, though keep in mind the development and integration of such a system is quite a ways in the future, and involves multiple participating universities. For clarification, if such a system is implemented, all curecoins *will* transfer over to the new system. We're not going to start fresh or anything silly like that.
516  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 25, 2014, 05:34:32 PM
been mining for an hour - but nothing on the pool website.   Huh

All my usernames match, I meticulously followed the guides and setup walkthroughs.

So is my 300K PPD being wasted by the pool?  Why isn't my username being matched and my PPD shown in the pool website?

Am I cooking an extremely expensive OCed Titan for nothing?

You haven't submitted any work units yet right?

With an hour of folding I don't think it's possible.

I am unfamiliar with this type of mining.

I turned off the CPU mining as suggested in the guide and turned the GPU to "Full" and set to core_17 process.

It is bouncing around between 290k-300k on the app, says 12% on the progress bar, ETA 7 hours....

So my system has to run flawlessly overclocked for 8.5 hours before work is submitted at all?  What if I crash after having done 5 hours of that work?

Poor system if it requires 9 hour stretches to complete before work is "turned in." IMHO.

miners crash.

Am I understanding your observation correctly and this new mining system?

If you crash, there are checkpoints saved if you look at the log file in the f@h client. So the f@h client will just resume from the last checkpoint.

The system has been in place since 2000 (9 years before bitcoin came out) and it works. It's not a mining system but a folding system.

I have done more research and understand better.  Thank you all.

I think since I have mined before, I would also like to try the investor route of supporting the coin.  Folding seems just like mining from my perspective.

How does one participate as an investor to donate 2.0 BTC and get 20k CureCoin, and then participate in PoS minting?

I see it has developers(given coins in pre-mine), miners(earn coins by processing transactions), folders(earn coins for doing the science of solving protein folding problems), and investors(earn coins by investing and then securing the coin with PoS minting).

There is a guide to everything but investing and PoS.  How do I participate as an investor as well as a folder?

This is a great use for Nvidia cards, but the PoS option seems rather attractive as well.

Hey! Since the coin is out of the "IPO"/crowdfunding stage, we no longer offer the 1 BTC for 10k Curecoin, unfortunately. Curecoin can be purchased on the exchanges (bittrex, poloniex), or on the forums.

For PoS, the easiest way to mint PoS blocks is to simply put the coins you don't plan on spending into an offline wallet, and every 30 days bring it back online for a day or two until you see the PoS blocks not coming any more.
517  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 23, 2014, 10:43:06 PM
Without reading back through pages of this thread.. have there been any recent developments on CureCoin? Just wondering why net hash has recently increased 10x.


We've got a few things in the works, we'll be announcing some cool stuff soon. Like, in the next week. Smiley
518  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 21, 2014, 01:03:27 AM
Did get more Minted coins today! The minted coins are they regularly like every day or are they depending on when your coins came in to the wallet. What should we expect?

//Aboy68

Are you talking about the "PoF" (Proof of Stake) blocks? If so, those are usually 30 days after the staking coins first entered your wallet Smiley
519  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 20, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
To run statistics in PPD are not the best way to show your performance.
Like these couple of day the performance have degraded if you count PPD, but what I can see. everybodys points have gone down.
It would be better to get a graf with your % of curecoin folding to check if you are doing what your hardware should do.

If someone handy reads this and have time and energy it would be nice to have  Cheesy
A graf like http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com in % and but on the curecoin webpage.... related to our share of coins.

//Aboy68

Hey Aboy68, PPLNS was adjusted a while ago to make payouts more reflective of daily performance, but it seems some people's payouts are still lower than they expected. Unfortunately Cygnus-XI has some IRL stuff to deal with these next few days, but we'll be looking into it more shortly. However, did you notice recently that the payouts have been closer to what you're expecting?
520  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 17, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
Any development news?
//Aboy68

Nothing too exciting right now, we've been working on (and finished, minus the few things we'll have to do just before it goes live) everything for backend ocore (F@H's next-generation folding software) support on our end, and we're also moving along with the stuff for the conference, we'll be posting conference materials in the next week or two.


Did find some info about the new "Ocore" -

"Another advantage of the streaming core is that deadlines are easier to handle and it's more efficient. Under traditional cores if I drop out of F@h then it takes weeks for my workunit to timeout and get reassigned. A stream core gains efficiency by synchronizing much more frequently. Now the results are returned to Stanford at every frame. This means that they get the results in a more continuous fashion. Also, every hour or so the Stanford servers are also sent "checkpoints", which are larger and more precise than frames but allow a stream to be resumed from that point. So now, if I go offline someone else can quickly pick up my stream where I left off, and there's less than an hour of downtime. Then I come back to the project I'd get a different stream to push forward."

"This is a totally different core and uses a totally different backend. It is designed for 24x7x356 folding."

"We actually want to encourage people to hold onto a single "WU" for as long as possible. We can probably make a contest of sorts down the road to see who can fold for the longest."

"We're working on unity, so that a single project can be completed by CPU cores, OpenCL cores, and possibly CUDA cores down the road. "

"Yes OCore supports AVX"

"In the past a project was hosted by one work server, if the server was down, project was down. With ocores, a single target can be processed by multiple servers, allowing for more redundancy and better load balancing."

This looks great!

Question: When are we shedualed to switch to the new core? Do we have a date?
Question: Are windows folding supported?
Question: Is it ok to stay in the "old" way of folding in parallel with the new?
Question: Vorksholk - how is your new folding working out, did see you where running the new Ocore?!

Now we can have multiple payout per day! True?

Calling ChasingTheDream - Now your "bad" hardware might work again!!!


//Aboy68

Yup, ocore's pretty awesome!

We don't have a date yet for when ocore transitions will occur for Curecoin payouts. As it stands, ocore is doing 'production' work, but is not currently scrabbling to the standard Stanford point system, and the way in which points will be assigned for ocore is still up in the air. As it stands, we could easily benchmark existing hardware to provide similar performance, but that's not the most elegant solution, for sure. It is really up to Stanford as to when they wish the transition to occur.

Windows ocores will be available Smiley

Yeah, as long as Stanford continues to support the old cores, Curecoin will still do payouts for them! However, ocores will likely have a slight point advantage, so it'd likely be in a person's best interest to fold ocore-style. Additionally, ocore may be pushed as an updated core to client v7, in which case those systems would switch over automatically.

Folding on ocore is working great, EC2 servers @ around 7 or 8 cents per hour can compute along the same performance as a Nvidia 760, which is pretty awesome.
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 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 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!