Official Poll for "CureCoin" has been requested by Stanford University

[jimhsu]

Well, it depends what you define as "verifiability". True, the minimum free energy structure doesn't have a 1:1 correspondence with the actual biological structure (in fact, I agree that free energy in itself is a pretty horrible metric), but similar systems have used energy as a decent ranking metric (google Foldit), and it's "the best we've got" as far as a concrete, verifiable calculation. Furthermore, computation of the free energy is far simpler than other possible metrics, whether homology-based (does this look like an evolutionarily related structure), domain-specific (does this have an appropriate # of helices, sheets, turns), etc. Thus, we can make do with free energy as a check for PoW, and I wager that the expansion of computer power for such a project will outweigh the negatives of not relying on other forms of verification. Researchers then can use these structures to then run further tests (such as domain classification, etc), which they might not be able to do if they're scheduled for indefinite amounts of compute time several months in the future (unless you're in a Nobel winning lab with a big fat NIH grant, it's tough, I've been there).

Of course, the problem is "which energy function". I suspect the F@H team is on that problem.

The bounty system that I proposed in the other thread allows for these other metrics to be slowly incorporated in the evolution of this coin (i.e. accept structures of protein XYZ only if mean C-alpha distances to reference homology structure is less than 2A.) But that will come in a future version.

/technical rant

[TheSwede75]

I feel sort of stupid for asking but how do you 'mine' CNC? Are there any pools open etc?

[cygnusxi]

HERE IS YOUR ANSWER

just found this in my gmail. This is from Professor Vijay Pande , here is a link to the team and lab he runs http://folding.stanford.edu/Pande/People

This is the guy who wanted to know if Bitcoin miners would be behind this concept, so i put up this poll.

From
Vijay Pande
11:53 AM (4 hours ago)
 
"Thanks.  We're thinking about how to make a consistent, reliable POW calculation which is useful for our science.  Doing a proof of concept POW is easy.  Doing something which can be consistent and around for years to decades, yet is always scientifically interesting is much trickier."


So there you have it folks. Thanks to the nice people of the bitcoin forum voting their support, we have let Professor Pande know we are indeed interested.

I hope it gets released REALLY REALLY SOON !!!!!! CANT WAIT!!!!

and not to worry all you worry warts...

i sent this to him im one of the emails

"Quick question. If this were to happen would Stanford even need the help of these people? If stanford launches it you will have to make sure you keep 1 main thing in mind. The bitcoin community loves to see projects build, and know how they work to the point they are satisfied about the safety / security of any software client they use. If you keep them informed and feed the constants updates to get excited about... you will get a huge response."

So hopefully soon they launch a project site, or join us here on the bitcoin forum.

Thanks again to everyone who voted

[cygnusxi]

I feel sort of stupid for asking but how do you 'mine' CNC? Are there any pools open etc?

CHN is China coin... is a new alt coin that has nothing to do with this. This project is yet to come

[jimhsu]

"for decades" ... that's ambitious. Curious to see what the F@H team comes up with. They should, of course, realize that POW schemes can change over the evolution of the coin (maybe another suggestion for them is for a consensus voting system to be implemented for client/POW alterations, similar to what tacotime is doing with MC2). No need to perfect it during the first iteration.

[tacotime]

Well, it depends what you define as "verifiability". True, the minimum free energy structure doesn't have a 1:1 correspondence with the actual biological structure, but similar systems have used energy as a decent ranking metric (google Foldit), and it's "the best we've got" as far as a concrete, verifiable calculation. Furthermore, computation of the free energy is far simpler than other possible metrics, whether homology-based (does this look like an evolutionarily related structure), domain-specific (does this have an appropriate # of helices, sheets, turns), etc. Thus, we can make do with free energy as a check for PoW, and I wager that the expansion of computer power for such a project will outweigh the negatives of not relying on other forms of verification.  

/technical rant

Yes, I've seen Foldit (I was one of the first bunch of people who used it upon release).

That'd be nice, because it'd be really easy for me to doctor without any focus on structure.  An accurate free energy calculation is also pretty computationally intensive as compared to a metric like Z-score or RMSD, which can be run in way less than a second.

You can reward them based on finding some local minima based on the structure that incorporates Z-score/RMSD as well as free energy, but I could also probably doctor that pretty easily and it actually poorly reflects on overall computational work.

In either case, you definitely need someone to verify the solutions afterwards --> centralization of the coin distribution is absolutely necessary (especially as the work needs to come from a central organization!).

The easiest thing to do is just to run a backend on the miner's computer that gives them administrative control, even if only on a VM, and then they can tell exactly what code is being executed.

The bounty system that I proposed in the other thread allows for these other metrics to be slowly incorporated in the evolution of this coin (i.e. accept structures of protein XYZ only if mean C-alpha distances to reference homology structure is less than 2A.) But that will come in a future version.

That's a really, really bad idea [2A confinement for C-alphas] and will result in a lot of not so useful structures.  Z-score would be a way better metric for that.  This is all based on the assumption as well that you're just looking for a structure closest to what the actual structure achieved through X-ray crystallography would be if you could get it.  There are a lot of other important problems, such as dynamic ligand-receptor interactions over a time course.  Ideally any PoW system should not be pigeon-holed by a single problem but adaptive to multiple problems.

Anyway, seems like a neat idea, not sure how you'll really implement it without administrative control of your nodes, would like to be interested but already have IRL research projects spanning multiple labs (and also here on bitcointalk).

[cygnusxi]

"for decades" ... that's ambitious. Curious to see what the F@H team comes up with. They should, of course, realize that POW schemes can change over the evolution of the coin (maybe another suggestion for them is for a consensus voting system to be implemented for client/POW alterations, similar to what tacotime is doing with MC2). No need to perfect it during the first iteration.

yes for decades, very interesting!! Professor Pande is a smart guy. He is not going to launch a fail coin.

Not to mention he has a team of scientists that im sure all extremely capable of making this really happen.

It not just a few kids making a new alt coin for fun like the new china coin, or min coin... etc this is a whole new ball game

[Joe_Bauers]

You really can't do that with something like protein folding simulations (I would know, I've worked in the field for three years...).  In fact, most scientific problems involve calculations applied to stochastic problems where they don't necessarily know what the results will be.  The only way I can think of is to just use a ripple like system where whatever at home gives you credits based upon your solutions being provided to them.  But it's not necessarily a bad answer to this problem, it's better than folding and getting nothing but points on a leaderboard.

If opencoin just released their source code you could directly port it and then use it to make a network like ripple for your coins -- but they haven't.

I've had this idea in my mind for the last few months, but I haven't had the time to get started. I suppose the name CureCoin would generate more interest than my idea of ScienceCoin. The main point though was to release an alt coin that actually serves a purpose.

My idea was to auction out (in BTC) the hashing power of the network, and return on a pps basis to the miners. So essentially ScienceCoin would be a - cheaper than supercomputer option - for anyone requiring distributed computing solutions.  Obviously the hard part would be to figure out how to allocate simulations/problems to the entire network. I suppose something like Hadoop could be used for that?   
 

[cygnusxi]

Would you mine for a "CureCoin" ?
With 100% of your hashing power    45 (47.4%)
75% of your hashing power    4 (4.2%)
50% of your hashing power    17 (17.9%)
under 25% of your hashing power    12 (12.6%)
Would not mine this coin at all.    17 (17.9%)

Total Voters: 95

So the btc network has been hashing at over 900 Petaflops for some time.. currently at 926.81 petaflops according to bitcoinwatch.com. It was over 960 just a few days ago.

47.4% of miners at 100% of 925 petalops = 438.45
4.2% of miner at 75% power = 29.13
17% of miners at 50% power = 78.625
12.6% of miners at 25% power = 29.13

Potential speed of curecoin network = 575.35 Petaflops
Current speed of folding@home network = 6.1 Petaflops

Potential speed increase of 94 times the current speed.

I guess that would be fast enough to speed up some cures  

Of course this is assuming that a poll of 95 votes is enough to calculate about the rest of the network... but still fun to look at the numbers.

*EDIT -- and one more vote for 100% while i was writing this --

[jimhsu]

You really can't do that with something like protein folding simulations (I would know, I've worked in the field for three years...).  In fact, most scientific problems involve calculations applied to stochastic problems where they don't necessarily know what the results will be.  The only way I can think of is to just use a ripple like system where whatever at home gives you credits based upon your solutions being provided to them.  But it's not necessarily a bad answer to this problem, it's better than folding and getting nothing but points on a leaderboard.

If opencoin just released their source code you could directly port it and then use it to make a network like ripple for your coins -- but they haven't.

I've had this idea in my mind for the last few months, but I haven't had the time to get started. I suppose the name CureCoin would generate more interest than my idea of ScienceCoin. The main point though was to release an alt coin that actually serves a purpose.

My idea was to auction out (in BTC) the hashing power of the network, and return on a pps basis to the miners. So essentially ScienceCoin would be a - cheaper than supercomputer option - for anyone requiring distributed computing solutions.  Obviously the hard part would be to figure out how to allocate simulations/problems to the entire network. I suppose something like Hadoop could be used for that?  
 

I'm all for "ScienceCoin" concepts, as long as there's a good POW function. Centralization is good in the case that a party can enforce the use of a certain algorithm, and implement checksums to make sure that the appropriate work has been performed, but is against the grain of most cryptocurrencies current out there.

BTW taco, forgive me if my ignorance is showing. My current field of study has nothing to do with protein folding or structure, and my knowledge is essentially in layman's terms (a scientific layman that is).

[ihokamik]

I'm all for "ScienceCoin" concepts, as long as there's a good POW function. Centralization is good in the case that a party can enforce the use of a certain algorithm, and implement checksums to make sure that the appropriate work has been performed, but is against the grain of most cryptocurrencies current out there.

It's true that some centralization will be necessary for a project like F@H because they have to provide the network with new data to work on once in a while.  The proof of work algorithm on the other hand can be centralized or not depending if it's possible to implement something that works for all future proteins.   Decentralized is of course better but, I would still "mine"  for a project where the proof of work algorithm is manipulated by a central authority if I have trust and respect in the said authority.   I know that not everyone trust universities but I personally trust them more than banks!  The most important part I think is not that it's centralized or not but that participant can't cheat and that the project offers total transparency.

I think that if we wan to get a lot of miners into this, we need to find the right scientific project.   We need to find a project that is only based on pure maths and where the proof of work would be undeniable.  The only project that comes to mind is the PrimeGrid project where their goal is simply to find huge prime numbers, this is similar to hashing, no?    There are probably other good projects to look into.   The BOINC project page is a good place to look to get some ideas going: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Project_list

[iGotSpots]

I would mine the hell out of this project

[str4wm4n]

What's the point?

CANNABIS CURES CANCER

[cygnusxi]

Id like to see new research coins coming out as fast as all the alt coins ive been trying to keep up with... how many alt coins are there now?

Mining would be so much more interesting if you could choose between coins with different research causes. Now we just choose coins based and difficulty and popularity..

[EastcaostSix]

You really can't do that with something like protein folding simulations (I would know, I've worked in the field for three years...).  In fact, most scientific problems involve calculations applied to stochastic problems where they don't necessarily know what the results will be.  The only way I can think of is to just use a ripple like system where whatever at home gives you credits based upon your solutions being provided to them.  But it's not necessarily a bad answer to this problem, it's better than folding and getting nothing but points on a leaderboard.

If opencoin just released their source code you could directly port it and then use it to make a network like ripple for your coins -- but they haven't.

I've had this idea in my mind for the last few months, but I haven't had the time to get started. I suppose the name CureCoin would generate more interest than my idea of ScienceCoin. The main point though was to release an alt coin that actually serves a purpose.

My idea was to auction out (in BTC) the hashing power of the network, and return on a pps basis to the miners. So essentially ScienceCoin would be a - cheaper than supercomputer option - for anyone requiring distributed computing solutions.  Obviously the hard part would be to figure out how to allocate simulations/problems to the entire network. I suppose something like Hadoop could be used for that?   
 

I like the idea of auctioning out computational power, as a researcher in molecular dynamics I would like having access to this when additional computing power is needed.

[UKMark]

This is an amazing idea and hats off cygnusxi for getting this far so fast.
Brings a whole new meaning to Currency too.  
Following closely!

[gramma]

This is an amazing idea and hats off cygnusxi for getting this far so fast.
Brings a whole new meaning to Currency too.  
Following closely!

Hear hear!  +1 and then some!

[Ignore@YourPeril]

There is some interest among freicoiners (central initial distribution of 80% of the coins, 20% to miners, over 3 years) for giving away freicoin proportionally to computer power donated to charitable causes.

I guess this could be easily implemented together with most other ideas and concepts for CureCoin. No problem in making a common hashing-faucet with several different coins (Devcoin should fit nicely for this also). Many different coins in the same hashing-faucet could even make it profitable to participate!

A double approach with much of the coins donated as CureCoin, together with keeping some reasonable fraction of the hashing power for Cure Coins own blockchain, where miners get their share (like Freicoin but only with the whole 80% all going as donated CureCoin), should be technically simple to implement (you would need some central organization, though)

[cygnusxi]

I'm probably gonna start a new thread when I get home from work. The thread will probably be titled CDCcoin. A pun on center for disease control. But actually meaning cure dev coin. I have a bunch of ideas. But to make a real cure coin first we should make a test run and get community feedback and make sure its actually going to work.

Maybe you guys can pick this idea apart for me.

Blocks created based on the api system of the folding network. Their api system is pretty high power. I read in theory a block can be triggered by pretty much any type of event.

Api created blocks could be confirmed 120 times or so before the reward matures. Creating typical level of crypto coin security.

Here is the problem with that idea though. The api handler would have to know what user name on the folding network is associated with which coin address.
This can probably be configured somehow... Still working on more ideas for that.

This is one of 2 main solutions im going to look at. I have to get back to work. Will discuss the other idea after you all get your chance to rip this one apart.

Oh. The private passkey you get for folding would be a good thing to integrate instead of username. It could be possible maybe to put your passkey in your CDC client to connect straight to the folding api and get your user stats. When confirming blocks the username tied to the passkey would be enough for other clients to call api and verify that the folding points were received.

[CryptoBullion]

HERE IS YOUR ANSWER

just found this in my gmail. This is from Professor Vijay Pande , here is a link to the team and lab he runs http://folding.stanford.edu/Pande/People

This is the guy who wanted to know if Bitcoin miners would be behind this concept, so i put up this poll.

From
Vijay Pande
11:53 AM (4 hours ago)
 
"Thanks.  We're thinking about how to make a consistent, reliable POW calculation which is useful for our science.  Doing a proof of concept POW is easy.  Doing something which can be consistent and around for years to decades, yet is always scientifically interesting is much trickier."


So there you have it folks. Thanks to the nice people of the bitcoin forum voting their support, we have let Professor Pande know we are indeed interested.

I hope it gets released REALLY REALLY SOON !!!!!! CANT WAIT!!!!

and not to worry all you worry warts...

i sent this to him im one of the emails

"Quick question. If this were to happen would Stanford even need the help of these people? If stanford launches it you will have to make sure you keep 1 main thing in mind. The bitcoin community loves to see projects build, and know how they work to the point they are satisfied about the safety / security of any software client they use. If you keep them informed and feed the constants updates to get excited about... you will get a huge response."

So hopefully soon they launch a project site, or join us here on the bitcoin forum.

Thanks again to everyone who voted

did anyone notice how cygnus got an email with these details of stanford's lab leader talking about building a coin with research pow?? This detail has not been mentioned in detail anywhere else on the web, checked the folding forums, googled for days....... i wish the stanford peeps would join up with team curecoin and make it super badass. So far it seems that stanford approves of the project but does not want to be involved in the creation of it ( probably legal reasons surrounding btc as currency in the states, this is mention in one of their bitcoin class blogs)  

I wanna see more votes on this, now that the project is making progress.

edit-- this thread was buried pretty deep --- odd that this long ago that detail was leaked...

edit-- maybe vorksholk is the hidden stanford agent and not the mystery dev...