Bitcoin Forum
January 18, 2019, 09:06:32 AM *
News: The copper membership price will increase by about 300% around Friday.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 77 78 ... 86 »
541  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][BBR] Boolberry [ANONYMOUS | CRYPTONOTE] 2 EXCHANGES on: June 03, 2014, 05:27:14 PM
Could someone confirm hashrate with an Amazon EC2 32CPU instance please? I was getting approx 1,300,000 (if I remember correctly). Is this in the right ballpark?

With the growing scratchpad size, the hashrate I get on a c3.8xlarge is somewhere around 1,000,000.

r3.8xlarge boxes are more in the 940,000-ish range. Smiley
542  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 11:06:19 PM
The fact that I still did not got any coins appearing on the pool after 2 days started to bother me a little.
No answer to my tickets on the pool either (even if they probaly did not work on sunday)
Hey boubou, what's your F@H username?
Hi, my username is "boudje"

What is your username on cryptobullionpools.com? On the Folding@Home stats, I'm seeing your username with a capital "B" spelled "Boudje", with a gain in the last 24 hours of 1674 points.

On the stanford site, on my profile, I did not have capital B:
Here is the copy/paste of my stats page:


boudje
Team 224497
Change Identity
I support research fighting
Any disease
Points earned
66,970 (See stats)
66,156 go to Team Curecoin's total of 4,436,318,839

As you see, there is no B in my pseudo. Sad

That's odd Sad I'm seeing you with a capital here: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=224497&username=Boudje
543  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 06:33:14 PM
If this certificate idea becomes integrated, it might make more sense to create an entirely new coin without basing it on existing source code, so that "Curecoin 2.0" would be built from the ground up around certificate-based coin mintage, and also to provide a simpler platform for forks of that new source to merge-fold with us. Food for thought.
It's a very bad idea. Current Curecoin 1.0 miners/folders would lose even the slightest interest in the coin. Its inevitable collapse would make Curecoin 2.0 a high-risk asset from the very beginning.
Actually, I'm afraid that even the fact the you presented such an idea in public will drive the price of Curecoin below its current low values.

Hey primeGPU! Why would they lose interest? All balances from 1.0 would transfer to 2.0, but if 2.0 required some form of protocol change beyond the scope of what could be done (efficiently) by a network fork, then 2.0 would be a separate network with transferred balances. It would continue from where 1.0 stopped. Suppose I should have clarified on that point.

Vorksholk, as was mentioned before in a previous message you express your ideas quite well and offer a lot of information people have an interest in.  I realize your time is limited but I do hope you post much more often.  So many questions whether thought or written instantly get taken care of when you post your thoughts.  Thanks for the information!

My personal feelings are that more integration and hopefully acceptance from Stanford and PL can only help legitimize CureCoin for the long term.  I don't want to alienate anyone but the fact is that many miners that became folders will leave this project when it no longer profitable to fold.  Trying to make the coin "profitable" in my view shouldn't be the point, but I know large scale miners have no choice in the matter because they have bills to pay.

I can only ask that when their hardware is no longer profitable but is still functional please redirect it back to CureCoin and folding.  Don't immediately sell your CureCoins.  Just see what happens in a couple years.  Consider it buying a lottery ticket and the work done just might save your life someday.  At least that is how I look at it.

I've read several articles where people realized they had several million dollars in Bitoins on their hard drives.  I hope that same thing happens with my CureCoins someday.   Grin  Win, lose, or draw though, at least the processing actually did some real valuable work.


Thanks! Yeah, I've been more active on IRC, but I'll become more active here too. Additional integration/acceptance from Stanford/PL is definitely a large component of the coin's future success, though given the current state of cryptocurrencies, it's no surprise that they want to stay fairly separated at the moment, which we understand.
544  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 05:14:37 PM
The above needs to be placed on the appropriate reddit thread.
The accusations that the alleged "lead-developer" put on there are very inaccurate and damaging to this project.
Purple-monkey-dishwasher.

I'd like to post that on the reddit thread, but I don't want to create any form of flame war...



We've been fairly quiet on the threads where jcoff talks about Curecoin. To clarify a few points though, he is not the "Lead Dev" of F@H as he claims to be, he developed the NaCL (Chrome folding) client, as well as the current desktop-version client, and likely contributes some other code elsewhere in the system. He brings up a few valid points, namely the centralization of the project. To summarize a longer explanation I went into on IRC, there are essentially four main options for integrating scientific computations into a cryptocurrency:

1.) Follow the path of Primecoin/Riecoin, where you create a proof-of-work which, while having some mathematical interest, doesn't have significant adaptability. From a decentralization standpoint, this option rocks, as it keeps the creation of work decentralized. However, the results of the PoW are not particularly helpful to science, and a new coin (or a fork of the coin) would be required to attempt proofs of another related mathematical theorem, such as the frequency with which primes are created, or the patterns? they will follow.

2.) Create a coin with a proof-of-work system based around the clients themselves collecting stats from the Stanford website, and agreeing on point payouts. This proposition, while on the surface quite decentralized, is also quite susceptible to errors. A change in the formatting of the Stanford stats, a change to the way points are assigned, etc. would cause massive client panic, and the network would be inoperable for days until the majority of users adopted a hot patch created by the developers. Not something that can occur in a legitimate currency, so this idea is, naturally, removed from consideration... Additionally, this idea would not allow easy transitions to include other distributed computing projects, such as Rosetta@Home, SETI@Home, World Community Grid. . .

3.) Create a coin which, with each block, creates a subsidy that is paid out to a pool account. The pool account would collect the subsidies created, and every day the server would look at the available coin balance, and split/payout that proportionally to all users, based on their computational resources contributed. This idea makes the folding server a large target, as the subsidy would be paid out to a hard-coded address, which, if the private key was obtained for it, would compromise the folding component of the currency.

4.) The method we chose involves the folding payout coins to be premined. This has several benefits, which was the reason we chose this path: we have a constant amount of currency, so we can stabilize folding payouts by having the same exact amount paid out (total) per day, reducing the risk of slow blocks impacting folding rewards, the premine can generate PoS to give additional rewards to folders, and those coins act as a major stake in the currency, which allows PoS blocks to be created, further increasing the difficulty of performing some form of 51% attack against the network, and the coins can, similar to the above option, be seen on the blockchain, on the public ledger. Similar to option #3, this approach allows us to add additional distributed computing projects to Curecoin in the future.

Admittedly, like all the above options, option number 4 has some shortcomings. The centralization of payouts worries some people, and the fact that a large number of coins are controlled by one party is also quite concerning to many. We saw this as the best option despite these inherent flaws, and therefore made the coin with that model in mind.

That is not to say that, in the future, the coin could not be adapted to, at some point, migrate all user balances and implement alternate network rules--once the blockchain has a significant and semi-constant hashing power, one option would be to make one such migration, in which a block subsidy is introduced, and all remaining folding premine funds would either not transfer over, or would be destroyed. Another option is to implement some form of network rule for the emission of folding funds in a more predictable manner, however it would still, at some level, be reliant on block speeds. If such a modification was to be introduced to the Curecoin network, it would require quite the organizational feat, and the transition would likely by disruptive for a short period of time.

As to complaints about the speed of payouts occurring, one of the things Josh and I have been working on "behind the scenes" (and in IRC) is tightening the screws of the system, and a few days ago we shaved off nearly 14 hours from the time it takes from the submission of a WU until it is credited in the system on our end.

We've also been extremely busy with figuring out how the BTC:Chicago conference's Curecoin booth will be done, if anyone has any ideas/experience they would like to offer, either post it here, or hop on IRC!


Thank You for the detailed answer.
Now if you added this information to the OP or Curecoin.net with links to updated information about the developer team and the LCC holding the coins it would already remove so much uncertainty and add credibility to the whole operation.
 
I agree that while the premine option is far from perfect it's hard to think of a better solution for now.
Jcoffland proposed a way where Stanford would issue certificates for WU's which could be used as Proof of Work. Is this something you might look into and try to work with Stanford to maybe get it implemented ? Now that they have seen the potential benefits Curecoin will bring to F@H maybe tehy will be more willing to work more closely with you guys ?

About the conference: Have you guys considered the idea of selling Curecoin gift cards which would be a mean for people to support the F@H cause as more buy support will directly bring more power to the network ? It's something that could only work and be unique for Curecoin and could attract people previously not familiar with cryptocurrencies.

Could be something in the lines of " 100Cur will help solves 10 WU's". I guess technically it would have to be in the form of pre printed paper wallets  where the private key is scratchable like a lottery ticket or smth and the amount of Cures and WU's could be printed on at the point of the sale. You could create a fund where these would be financed from initially and buy back what ever was sold during the day from the markets at every evening. Obviously a public ledger with addresses and balances would have to be kept. Would be great if the gift card could be digital also but I dont have an idea how to deal with the private keys then.

Some sort of effort clearly has to be made to market the coin as these days it's unfortunately not working on the principle "If you build it, they will come".

I'll chat with LasersHurt today about getting some more clarity on curecoin.net for the premine holdings. Smiley

Here's what jcoffland said about certificates:

"The first thing I would ask of the CureCoin project, is to make it 100% clear to those in the folding team that they should not get angry with Folding@home if there is a problem with their points. Naturally we are happy to help and do our best to resolve problems with points but we have limited resources. We already deal regularly with people angry about points. Now that they might be worth real money there's a real possibility of people freaking out and giving us hell over the mistakes that can and do happen. This should be one of the first items on your knowledge base page.

Secondly, CureCoin should work with us to create a CureCoin 2.0 where signed certificates issued by Stanford which represent points are accepted directly into the CureCoin blockchain. This would eliminate the possibility of incorrectly allocating CureCoins on the CureCoin side. Securing the work servers could be handled by Stanford issuing an allocation of CureCoin points to work servers which they could grant to users for folding power. All secured with public-key crypto. After these changes the only point of failure would be at Stanford and could be kept under close guard. However, I must point out that I cannot guarantee that the Pande Lab will choose to allocate resources to this. That's not up to me.

If CureCoin can address the first issue ASAP and start working towards the second issue I would be greatly appeased."

As for his first point about the separation between F@H and Curecoin, I feel we have fairly well shown the distinction between the two projects, however it couldn't hurt to add some sort of thing on the pool, like a banner.


For his signed certificate idea, it appears to be quite interesting on the surface, and is actually similar to another idea I had proposed a while ago which Josh and I decided wasn't likely feasible. If the certificates representing some value of points were assigned Stanford-side, maybe introduced to the network by a trusted node setup or private/public key confirmation, they could be accepted into the blockchain. However, depending on the implementation of this idea, it could cause significant blockchain bloat. I can think of three ways this would work (though I'm sure I'm missing some awesome ideas here):

1.) Stanford signs a certificate for each submitted WU, credits the points to the username, which could be recorded in the blockchain as an alias. Obvious blockchain bloat, as blockchain size scales linearly with increases in folding power.

2.) Stanford signs a certificate daily for each user, credits the points to the username, blockchain alias, etc. Much smaller blockchain bloat, scales in a linear fashion with increase in users rather than in folding power.

3.) Stanford signs a certificate daily for total coins minted, signing those coins over to a public address. Payouts then occur from there. No benefit derived over a simple block subsidy, except keeping a consistent flow of coins.

If we were to go this route, my personal choice would be #2. A few things would need to be in place for such a system to work:
--> Central trusted method of introducing certificates to network. I'd opt for a commonly-known public key, and then certificates signed by a private key. Each certificate would be trivial to confirm authenticity of, and then a transaction could be deterministically produced and confirmed by any node on the network. An alternate method which I would suggest against would involve a centralized node structure.
--> A rewrite of various components of the coin to shift mintage over to a certificate-based and PoW hybrid system.
--> A method of migrating current balances to the new system.

There are several different options for migrating balances to the new network system. A change could be implemented which, at a certain block, hard-forked and began creating block subsidies or something of the like based off of certificates. Alternately, it may make more sense to build a brand new network, and migrate existing balances over. This could occur in a centralized manner where a premine is created on the new chain and user balances are manually converted, or the new network could use the same addressing method where private keys are valid on both networks, and as a result an automated system could crawl the curecoin blockchain at a certain, planned block for *all* balances, and send out new coins proportionally.

One other obstacle which jcoff alluded to in his post dealt with the willingness of Stanford to integrate with Curecoin. Currently, Stanford (specifically Pande Labs) views the Curecoin project in a positive light, but is, as would be expected, distancing themselves from it for the time being, and giving no official endorsement. We of course contacted Pande labs months prior to the launch of Curecoin, and at the time any integration beyond our access to public statistics was mostly ruled out. As the Curecoin project evolves, there is of course the possibility of Pande Labs being open to higher levels of integration, at which point this certificate idea would become much more feasible.

Another point to note is that such an integration would likely remove the coin's ability to add additional distributed computing projects in the future. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider.

If this certificate idea becomes integrated, it might make more sense to create an entirely new coin without basing it on existing source code, so that "Curecoin 2.0" would be built from the ground up around certificate-based coin mintage, and also to provide a simpler platform for forks of that new source to merge-fold with us. Food for thought.

We have considered the idea of selling Curecoins at the booth, but unfortunately we don't believe the sale of a digital currency like Curecoin from a central source like a booth is legal (in the USA, at least) without appropriate licensing, which we don't have. We will be giving out Curecoins at the booth though!
545  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
The fact that I still did not got any coins appearing on the pool after 2 days started to bother me a little.
No answer to my tickets on the pool either (even if they probaly did not work on sunday)
Hey boubou, what's your F@H username?
Hi, my username is "boudje"

What is your username on cryptobullionpools.com? On the Folding@Home stats, I'm seeing your username with a capital "B" spelled "Boudje", with a gain in the last 24 hours of 1674 points.
546  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][BBR]Boolberry[ANONYMITY&UNLINKABILITY|PoW-BCHAIN-BASED]LAUNCHED on: June 02, 2014, 06:25:49 AM
Is anyone currently working on a GUI of some sort?
547  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 05:41:28 AM
I've done a fair amount of thinking about Curecoin to this point and I think the price drop, frankly, is justified. Here are my thoughts and recommendations. The Curecoin team can do as they please. I am not planning on selling any of my coins in the near term but as a large stakeholder, I hope that the community gives this some thought.

  • New projects are fundamentally about people. And we know nothing about the Curecoin team. While it's true that the lead dev, Cygnus has outed his real name and Google+ account, that is, for all practical purposes meaningless. The dev page should be updated to reflect resume details about the developers: their skills, and past projects.
  • To date, the developers have done a poor job of communicating with the community. I applaud "lasershunt" for taking on much of this burden, but the devs should be in the forums a minimum of 1-2 hours/day. There are many good & concerning questions from interested parties here, on Reddit & Overclockers, but none are being addressed by offical reps. That is a huge miss.
  • The team needs to surrounds themselves with professional advisors/business development folks who are connected in the industry, can assist in speaking gigs at conferences, and manage PR. These people need to be official on the website to inspire confidence in the press, miners and investors.
  • The big incongruity is that there is an imbalance in the professional aims of the project and the seemingly amateur voices supporting it. Long-term this project will not succeed without the support (and potential integration) of Stanford University/Pande Labs and the team has not inspired the market with confidence that such partnerships are on the horizon (not to mention the comments from Pande Labs that the developers ignored their concerns). Many of the forum voices are well meaning but ultimately misguided. Spending $2,000 on a booth at a conference is probably not the best use of money. Right now the only investments should be made in recruiting phenomenal people to work on the project, and building stronger ties with Pande Labs. I can promise you that if you're able to steal 2-3 devs from Mastercoin, NXT, even coins like XC or whatnot, or find equivalent talent willing to work on Curecoin (and prove their skills) the market will respond very positively.
  • The reason why this matters is that the structure of the coin requires a lot of community trust. There is a reasonable pre-mine (5% including dev & IPO) as well as a centralized distribution plan. Curecoin is a potentially game changing idea - connecting economic benefit to social purpose. But as folding is not encoded into the blockchain, and is not decentralized, much of the market will lose interest. Those who are interested will demand legitimacy and credibility which is what I'm advocating for in this post.
Overall, it's still early, about 2 weeks since release. I do think there are some significant issues, but a lot of upside as well if the team is willing to adapt quickly, accept help from highly qualified people, and re-focus 100% on moving faster than other coin on the market.



Have to agree here. For a 80%+ premined coin the effort put into credibility is just ridiculous. The developer fund was supposed to be used for keeping at least Cygnus him self working with the coin as a full time job but yet after 20 days of the launch I cant see not much being done. No ledger, no developer information (a post in the middle of a long thread kinda doesnt do it), no Mac wallet, no replies to direct questions in the thread, zero marketing etc. Hey, maybe they are currently working on something big and I am unjust here but this is what it looks at the outside to investors and miners (hold vs dump).
The idea was good but so far the execution is less than perfect Roll Eyes Last straw was that the team and F@H guys dont even get along so the Lead dev goes and bashes the coin on reddit making the price fall 4x  Shocked Nice, very proffesional from both sides. Though I admit I agree with jcoffland on a lot of points I dont know what he hoped to achieve there -  his comments directly moved/ will move double digit % of power away from F@H  Roll Eyes

I hold a heap of Curecoins that I earned with folding and hope things will start to move along as this not the first time I am keeping my eye on a coin where Dev inactivity is a big concern and the result has always been the same.... Once the window of opportunity closes and the initial inertia of a new coin is gone there is usually no coming back.
I really hope they sort their sh*t out with jcoffland/Pande/Standford or who ever and we start seeing a bit more activity from the developers.

We've been fairly quiet on the threads where jcoff talks about Curecoin. To clarify a few points though, he is not the "Lead Dev" of F@H as he claims to be, he developed the NaCL (Chrome folding) client, as well as the current desktop-version client, and likely contributes some other code elsewhere in the system. He brings up a few valid points, namely the centralization of the project. To summarize a longer explanation I went into on IRC, there are essentially four main options for integrating scientific computations into a cryptocurrency:

1.) Follow the path of Primecoin/Riecoin, where you create a proof-of-work which, while having some mathematical interest, doesn't have significant adaptability. From a decentralization standpoint, this option rocks, as it keeps the creation of work decentralized. However, the results of the PoW are not particularly helpful to science, and a new coin (or a fork of the coin) would be required to attempt proofs of another related mathematical theorem, such as the frequency with which primes are created, or the patterns? they will follow.

2.) Create a coin with a proof-of-work system based around the clients themselves collecting stats from the Stanford website, and agreeing on point payouts. This proposition, while on the surface quite decentralized, is also quite susceptible to errors. A change in the formatting of the Stanford stats, a change to the way points are assigned, etc. would cause massive client panic, and the network would be inoperable for days until the majority of users adopted a hot patch created by the developers. Not something that can occur in a legitimate currency, so this idea is, naturally, removed from consideration... Additionally, this idea would not allow easy transitions to include other distributed computing projects, such as Rosetta@Home, SETI@Home, World Community Grid. . .

3.) Create a coin which, with each block, creates a subsidy that is paid out to a pool account. The pool account would collect the subsidies created, and every day the server would look at the available coin balance, and split/payout that proportionally to all users, based on their computational resources contributed. This idea makes the folding server a large target, as the subsidy would be paid out to a hard-coded address, which, if the private key was obtained for it, would compromise the folding component of the currency.

4.) The method we chose involves the folding payout coins to be premined. This has several benefits, which was the reason we chose this path: we have a constant amount of currency, so we can stabilize folding payouts by having the same exact amount paid out (total) per day, reducing the risk of slow blocks impacting folding rewards, the premine can generate PoS to give additional rewards to folders, and those coins act as a major stake in the currency, which allows PoS blocks to be created, further increasing the difficulty of performing some form of 51% attack against the network, and the coins can, similar to the above option, be seen on the blockchain, on the public ledger. Similar to option #3, this approach allows us to add additional distributed computing projects to Curecoin in the future.

Admittedly, like all the above options, option number 4 has some shortcomings. The centralization of payouts worries some people, and the fact that a large number of coins are controlled by one party is also quite concerning to many. We saw this as the best option despite these inherent flaws, and therefore made the coin with that model in mind.

That is not to say that, in the future, the coin could not be adapted to, at some point, migrate all user balances and implement alternate network rules--once the blockchain has a significant and semi-constant hashing power, one option would be to make one such migration, in which a block subsidy is introduced, and all remaining folding premine funds would either not transfer over, or would be destroyed. Another option is to implement some form of network rule for the emission of folding funds in a more predictable manner, however it would still, at some level, be reliant on block speeds. If such a modification was to be introduced to the Curecoin network, it would require quite the organizational feat, and the transition would likely by disruptive for a short period of time.

As to complaints about the speed of payouts occurring, one of the things Josh and I have been working on "behind the scenes" (and in IRC) is tightening the screws of the system, and a few days ago we shaved off nearly 14 hours from the time it takes from the submission of a WU until it is credited in the system on our end.

We've also been extremely busy with figuring out how the BTC:Chicago conference's Curecoin booth will be done, if anyone has any ideas/experience they would like to offer, either post it here, or hop on IRC!
548  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 02, 2014, 05:00:27 AM
I'm all for Curecoin, but the implementation IS flawed...devs seem awfully silent and that is not good in the eyes of the public.

There's too much inflation and too little uses for the Curecoins right now, sha256 miners will flock to btc again and the coin won't be secure with PoS alone. Something must be done asap...  Undecided

You guys should check out the IRC channel, there's a lot more activity and day-to-day planning in there. We're working on organizing everything for the Chicago BTC conference, and so are fairly quiet on the forums as we work on figuring out marketing, booth design, demos to show, and getting some other assets organized for the convention.

Hop into IRC (freenode #curecoin) to keep up on the latest development, and to ask us questions and get quick responses Smiley

Stanford's also going to be pushing some changes to the stats system when they roll out ocore, so we'll be fairly busy working on making sure that our end is ready when they start to phase it in.
549  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: BBR Boolberry trading thread | Bid 0.002 / Ask 0.0022 / Last 0.0022 on: June 01, 2014, 11:13:12 PM
BBR hit Bittrex. Smiley
550  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][BBR]Boolberry[ANONYMITY&UNLINKABILITY|PoW-BCHAIN-BASED]LAUNCHED on: June 01, 2014, 08:35:04 PM
If people want to buy at 0.002, shoot me a PM.
551  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto on: June 01, 2014, 03:03:50 PM
The fact that I still did not got any coins appearing on the pool after 2 days started to bother me a little.
No answer to my tickets on the pool either (even if they probaly did not work on sunday)
Hey boubou, what's your F@H username?
552  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: Bounty for Boolberry Pool on: May 31, 2014, 07:32:35 PM
Sent another 200 BBR. Let's get this pool going!



Money successfully sent, transaction <d10073312d056a43bbec6c696fa3a60e8c8c043c66b0481018e80b309272775c>, 1123 bytes
553  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: PRE [ANN] CureCoin development continues.... Still no coin in the account on: May 31, 2014, 02:41:59 AM
I've been folding almost 2 weeks now.  A couple hundred work units and 90k points.  Nothing is showing in the cryptobullionmining dashboard.
I sent an email to cryptobullionmining@gmail.com late last week no response that I've seen.  Tried signing up on the curecoin.us board but it wanted me to verify team name and number. I didn't join a team yet so all I had was, Team 0 and no name.
Thanks

Hey defier, looks like you need to sign up at cryptobullionpools.com. Send me a CUR address, and I'll send you a few CUR for your time without payouts. Smiley

Cool,
I signed up on cryptobullionppols during setup, but never joined a team.  Didn't read anywhere that a team was mandatory.  The web control now says, points going to curecoin's team total now.  I suspect it will be a day or so before they start showing on the CBPs dashboard.


So any earnings from folding done on Team 0, are what?  Lost to the chain forever?  Never actually existed?  I like to be at least partially educated when recruiting people to curecoin.
Thanks


BRJX24F7fCqMJuzkmzqHrMhkgkDc4hWaAo

Yup, up to 48 hours (depending on timing) for WUs to be credited on our end. Sent a few CURE Smiley

Those points basically went to an aggregate group, which just isn't counted in our stats collection. Still had scientific benefit though, of course!
554  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: Bounty for Boolberry Pool on: May 30, 2014, 04:40:01 PM
Sent another 100 BBR: Money successfully sent, transaction <f86f70fbffbd8233f511b94dd54f1fd33e13008b7c3368e2ea8725182fedb4e7>, 592 bytes
555  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: BBR Boolberry trading thread | Bid 0.0024 / Ask 0.003 / Last 0.0024 on: May 30, 2014, 12:32:49 AM
WTS 0.0022 / 1100 / 2.4200 BTC
Could you not sell to the existing orders?
Quote
0.00225 / 1000 / 2.25 / sixteendigits
0.00240 / 416 / 1 / darlidada
0.00240 / 1000 / 2.4 / zzzman20 (escrow with OP)

I have PM'd all of them, and have yet to get responses. I helped zzzman20 get setup mining instead of selling him coins, and darlidada and sixteendigits have been PM'd.
556  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: BBR Boolberry trading thread | Bid 0.0024 / Ask 0.003 / Last 0.0024 on: May 30, 2014, 12:22:50 AM
WTS 0.0022 / 1100 / 2.4200 BTC
557  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / Re: Bounty for Boolberry Pool on: May 29, 2014, 07:20:09 AM
Sent 50 BBRs. Smiley

Money successfully sent, transaction <ec4a6dd21092a6705ae3df1daab6a6d5a12bf9e03b4e30baa2138682e3c67d65>, 357 bytes
558  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: PRE [ANN] CureCoin development continues.... Still no coin in the account on: May 29, 2014, 01:04:52 AM
I've been folding almost 2 weeks now.  A couple hundred work units and 90k points.  Nothing is showing in the cryptobullionmining dashboard.
I sent an email to cryptobullionmining@gmail.com late last week no response that I've seen.  Tried signing up on the curecoin.us board but it wanted me to verify team name and number. I didn't join a team yet so all I had was, Team 0 and no name.
Thanks

Hey defier, looks like you need to sign up at cryptobullionpools.com. Send me a CUR address, and I'll send you a few CUR for your time without payouts. Smiley
559  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][BBR]Boolberry[ANONYMITY&UNLINKABILITY|PoW-BCHAIN-BASED] LAUNCHED on: May 28, 2014, 01:33:08 AM
After a good half hour, 85MH finally hits a block.

85MH! Where did you get that much power?

EC2. 100 16-core machines.
560  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][BBR]Boolberry[ANONYMITY&UNLINKABILITY|PoW-BCHAIN-BASED] LAUNCHED on: May 28, 2014, 01:17:48 AM
After a good half hour, 85MH finally hits a block.
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 77 78 ... 86 »
Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!