Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 07:04:12 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 [160] 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 ... 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]CureCoin - CURECOIN TEAM HAS TAKEN RANK 1 ON FOLDING@HOME!!!  (Read 668203 times)
DevShuster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23


View Profile WWW
March 16, 2016, 12:19:19 AM
 #3181

Hey everyone, sorry about the radio silence!

The 2.0 code is coming along nicely, but we need to do a larger-scale test of the mini-blockchain + merkle-signature scheme.

The Curecoin developers are planning to launch a beta of "SigmaX," which will be a PoW-only quantum-computer-resistant cryptocurrency, based on the refactored 2.0 code I'm polishing up. We want to stress that
Curecoin is still our primary project, but SigmaX will serve four purposes:
-Non-ghosttown blockchain to test our ideas for 2.0 before launch (primarily looking at scalability of our mini-blockchain implementation)
-Give a quantum-computer-resistant blockchain to people concerned about the centralization of Curecoin 2.0 certificates
-After launch of cc2.0, serve as a production test for updates
-Get exposure for the Curecoin project

SigmaX will have a small (<1% of the first year of mintage) premine, which will be paid to current holders of Curecoin (we'll do a "snapshot" of the Curecoin blockchain at a certain block, and people will sign a message with their curecoin address to redeem their portion of the SigmaX). No dev funds, no IPO/ICO/crowdsale, and any unclaimed part of the premine will be provably burned after a few months.
We'll launch the beta for SigmaX in the next week (testnet), and the full network launch will come a few weeks later.

SigmaX will also use what we call a 'narrowing' hashing function which could make scalable treechains possible in the future. The algorithm will be CPU/GPU mineable, with an OpenCL and CUDA miner available on launch.

Very interesting, can we assume that CC2.0 will be ready some weeks after launch of SigmaX or is there some setback due to certificate system?

Assuming SigmaX launch goes smoothly and no major issues present themselves with the larger network, then CC2.0 is just a matter of replacing the PoW algorithm with certificates, which won't be difficult at all. We'll probably just gather the Curecoin community's opinion on how long we should let SigmaX run to be confident that the network scales well, which I expect will be two or three weeks.

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications. 

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise. 

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.
1513321452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513321452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513321452
Reply with quote  #2

1513321452
Report to moderator
1513321452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513321452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513321452
Reply with quote  #2

1513321452
Report to moderator
1513321452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513321452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513321452
Reply with quote  #2

1513321452
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 03:58:45 AM
 #3182

Hey everyone, sorry about the radio silence!

The 2.0 code is coming along nicely, but we need to do a larger-scale test of the mini-blockchain + merkle-signature scheme.

The Curecoin developers are planning to launch a beta of "SigmaX," which will be a PoW-only quantum-computer-resistant cryptocurrency, based on the refactored 2.0 code I'm polishing up. We want to stress that
Curecoin is still our primary project, but SigmaX will serve four purposes:
-Non-ghosttown blockchain to test our ideas for 2.0 before launch (primarily looking at scalability of our mini-blockchain implementation)
-Give a quantum-computer-resistant blockchain to people concerned about the centralization of Curecoin 2.0 certificates
-After launch of cc2.0, serve as a production test for updates
-Get exposure for the Curecoin project

SigmaX will have a small (<1% of the first year of mintage) premine, which will be paid to current holders of Curecoin (we'll do a "snapshot" of the Curecoin blockchain at a certain block, and people will sign a message with their curecoin address to redeem their portion of the SigmaX). No dev funds, no IPO/ICO/crowdsale, and any unclaimed part of the premine will be provably burned after a few months.
We'll launch the beta for SigmaX in the next week (testnet), and the full network launch will come a few weeks later.

SigmaX will also use what we call a 'narrowing' hashing function which could make scalable treechains possible in the future. The algorithm will be CPU/GPU mineable, with an OpenCL and CUDA miner available on launch.

Very interesting, can we assume that CC2.0 will be ready some weeks after launch of SigmaX or is there some setback due to certificate system?

Assuming SigmaX launch goes smoothly and no major issues present themselves with the larger network, then CC2.0 is just a matter of replacing the PoW algorithm with certificates, which won't be difficult at all. We'll probably just gather the Curecoin community's opinion on how long we should let SigmaX run to be confident that the network scales well, which I expect will be two or three weeks.

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications. 

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise. 

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.

1. The ratio of SigmaX to Curecoin is irrelevant as they are different currencies. CC1.0 will translate 1:1 to CC2.0 that is all that matters. Also CC2.0 is infact not the first quantum resistant blockchain there are other coins which have taken on this issue although their implementation is different.

2. The promises made regarding economic characteristics of CC remain unchanged, however I would like to see that the CC1.0 premine for payouts to folders in not used to cash in on SigmaX distribution that would seem unfair.

3. The only person you can blame for not receiving pos for your balance of CC is yourself, it is your choice to leave ur CC on an exchange.

4. Totally agree there needs to be a large overhaul of largely outdated material relating to CC.

Someone PM'd me to discuss the 1% of first year mintage of SigmaX for folders, so I'd like to open that discussion up to the community.

I'd like to clarify a few points about the relationship between Curecoin and SigmaX:
-SigmaX and Curecoin 2.0 are entirely independent blockchains
-SigmaX will be purely proof of work, using a treechain-friendly hashing algorithm
-Curecoin 2.0 will still launch, likely within two or three weeks of the successful SigmaX full launch
-SigmaX will be the 'bleeding-edge' production test for updates to the Curecoin 2.0 code in the future. Things will go SigmaX testnet -> Curecoin 2.0 testnet -> SigmaX mainnet -> Curecoin 2.0 mainnet
-Curecoin 2.0 will only be mineable through folding

We wanted to premine a small amount of SigmaX and give it out to current holders of Curecoin to reward you guys for sticking with the project. The 1% figure was chosen since we figured that it'd be small enough that the general cryptocurrency community wouldn't be bothered by it.

If people want a larger percentage to go to Curecoin users, there's a few ways to do it:
-Simply premine a larger amount
-Have a permanent or decaying block subsidy for each SigmaX block that pays to a public address we control, and we'd do payouts of that using our traditional pool setup
-Have a larger premine mature gradually in the future, and do periodic payouts from that
-Have a larger premine mature all at one point in the future, and do the payouts at that point

And again, there's no dev fund, IPO/ICO/crowdsale for SigmaX.



Are there any specifics you have in mind for SigmaX, such as total supply, block time, difficulty targeting mechanisim or what algo to use?
I wonder if the premine can be avoided, just a quick thought but perhaps you could make it so you can Burn CC in exchange for SigmaX.
BTCTT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 04:46:53 AM
 #3183

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard

cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 04:58:20 AM
 #3184

Hey everyone, sorry about the radio silence!

The 2.0 code is coming along nicely, but we need to do a larger-scale test of the mini-blockchain + merkle-signature scheme.

The Curecoin developers are planning to launch a beta of "SigmaX," which will be a PoW-only quantum-computer-resistant cryptocurrency, based on the refactored 2.0 code I'm polishing up. We want to stress that
Curecoin is still our primary project, but SigmaX will serve four purposes:
-Non-ghosttown blockchain to test our ideas for 2.0 before launch (primarily looking at scalability of our mini-blockchain implementation)
-Give a quantum-computer-resistant blockchain to people concerned about the centralization of Curecoin 2.0 certificates
-After launch of cc2.0, serve as a production test for updates
-Get exposure for the Curecoin project

SigmaX will have a small (<1% of the first year of mintage) premine, which will be paid to current holders of Curecoin (we'll do a "snapshot" of the Curecoin blockchain at a certain block, and people will sign a message with their curecoin address to redeem their portion of the SigmaX). No dev funds, no IPO/ICO/crowdsale, and any unclaimed part of the premine will be provably burned after a few months.
We'll launch the beta for SigmaX in the next week (testnet), and the full network launch will come a few weeks later.

SigmaX will also use what we call a 'narrowing' hashing function which could make scalable treechains possible in the future. The algorithm will be CPU/GPU mineable, with an OpenCL and CUDA miner available on launch.

Very interesting, can we assume that CC2.0 will be ready some weeks after launch of SigmaX or is there some setback due to certificate system?

Assuming SigmaX launch goes smoothly and no major issues present themselves with the larger network, then CC2.0 is just a matter of replacing the PoW algorithm with certificates, which won't be difficult at all. We'll probably just gather the Curecoin community's opinion on how long we should let SigmaX run to be confident that the network scales well, which I expect will be two or three weeks.

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications.  

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise.  

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.

WHAT??

When is the snapshot? I have most of my holdings on the exchange too.

This needs more investigation.

They surely wouldn't dare sell-out curecoin holders and supporters would they?

Perhaps we are not understanding what he meant correctly?

Let's await some Q and A before we make any changes.

The last time I heard oh yeah we're starting a new project but the old project will be our main focus was Xc and blocknet.


████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
     ▄▄████████▄▄
   ▄██████████████▄
 ▄██████████████████▄
██████▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀█
██████     █████     █
██████     █████     █             ▄▄▄
██████     ▀▀▀▀▀     █        ███  ███
 ▀████                  ▄▄▄   ███  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄
   ▀██     ▄▄▄▄▄      ▄█████▄ ███  ███ ███  ███ ████████████▄
     ▀     █████      ███▄▄██ ███  ███ ███  ███ ███ ▀███ ▀███
           ▀▀███      ███▄▄▄  ███▄ ███ ███▄████ ███  ███  ███
               ▀       ▀████▀  ▀██ ███ ▀███▀███ ███  ███  ███
                   ▀█
████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
|
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 05:17:32 AM
 #3185

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



It is essentially a clone of CC2.0 but will use PoW instead of certificates very little needs to be done to make the changes to enable SigmaX to launch. I'd rather find out some specifics before concocting conspiracy theories.
BTCTT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 05:19:57 AM
 #3186

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



It is essentially a clone of CC2.0 but will use PoW instead of certificates very little needs to be done to make the changes to enable SigmaX to launch. I'd rather find out some specifics before concocting conspiracy theories.

They can't handle one coin... what make you think they can handle two?

wake up bro those guys are f***ing with us

if they want to clone it before someone else does, then make it 100% POS and let the current holder have 100% of the premine

The all moto of Curecoin is POW is a waste of energy so seriously WTF
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 16, 2016, 06:02:28 AM
 #3187

Sorry, this is going to be a long post.

Hey everyone, didn't realize there'd be such a backlash to this SigmaX idea. If the Curecoin community doesn't like this idea, we won't do it. That being said, I'd like to make sure everyone understands the goals of SigmaX.

SigmaX is basically a more "pure" rendition of the cc2.0 code. Same core technology (quantum-resistant algorithms, mini-blockchain, virtually-inexistant currency scripting language), without the certificate system. There's a fairly large portion of the cryptocurrency community who have avoided our project on the basis of centralization. In 1.0, the centralization is, of course, the large premine for the folding payout pool. In 2.0, it will be the certificate signature authorities.

We see the benefits as:
Since it is so similar to the 2.0 code, it'll work as a great stress test of some of the currently-untested (in a high-impact environment) technologies we're using. Additionally, it'll be great for testing new features on, before putting them on the 2.0 network after the release of both.
Its more "pure" format lends itself well to mainstream adoption, which would get more attention for the Curecoin project.

It basically boils down to this:
When we release cc2.0, someone's going to fork it and slap a PoW on it. If they do it, the Curecoin community doesn't benefit at all--any press they get revolves around the "great decentralized quantum-resistant blockchain known as xyz," current Curecoin holders won't have any stake in the network, and the Curecoin ecosystem wouldn't be the de-facto go-to quantum chain solution. SigmaX targets the market of people who are uninterested in Curecoin anyway because of its centralization.


We're not doing a premine(other than the one paid out to curecoin holders)/instamine/ICO/IPO/crowdsale/devfund.

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications.  

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise.  

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.

You bring up some good points--we don't want to dilute cc2.0 holders, so releasing SigmaX with some time-release premine paid out 1:1 for cc1.0 holders, and then keep the PoW mintage schedule the same as originally planned for cc1.0 might be a good option.

If we end up doing SigmaX, the snapshot block# will be very close to the release (no earlier than block 108000 which will be in about three weeks, and probably later), and will be published as soon as we decide on it. We could also do a time-released premine which pays out on a weekly basis for, say, a year based on current cc1.0/cc2.0 holdings.

The curecoin.net website does need an overhaul for sure.


1. The ratio of SigmaX to Curecoin is irrelevant as they are different currencies. CC1.0 will translate 1:1 to CC2.0 that is all that matters. Also CC2.0 is infact not the first quantum resistant blockchain there are other coins which have taken on this issue although their implementation is different.

2. The promises made regarding economic characteristics of CC remain unchanged, however I would like to see that the CC1.0 premine for payouts to folders in not used to cash in on SigmaX distribution that would seem unfair.

3. The only person you can blame for not receiving pos for your balance of CC is yourself, it is your choice to leave ur CC on an exchange.

4. Totally agree there needs to be a large overhaul of largely outdated material relating to CC.

Someone PM'd me to discuss the 1% of first year mintage of SigmaX for folders, so I'd like to open that discussion up to the community.
-snip-


Are there any specifics you have in mind for SigmaX, such as total supply, block time, difficulty targeting mechanisim or what algo to use?
I wonder if the premine can be avoided, just a quick thought but perhaps you could make it so you can Burn CC in exchange for SigmaX.

For your first point, that was our initial thinking, but people's discussion of that diluting cc1.0 holders makes sense too.

As for specifics, we're thinking of roughly a similar mintage schedule to curecoin 1.0/2.0, a block time of 2-3 minutes, a quadratic weighting algorithm for difficulty targeting, and a custom hashing algorithm that'll make treechains easier to implement in the future, if there's interest.

We wanted to avoid people burning Curecoin cause we don't want people leaving the Curecoin ecosystem, but that's a good discussion idea to bring up as well.

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard

As I noted above, it basically boils down to knowing that someone will fork cc2.0 after release, slap PoW on it, and it won't benefit the Curecoin ecosystem at all. SigmaX makes it so that PoW fork is under the Curecoin project, and benefits cc2.0.

As for time, SigmaX is closely related to the cc2.0 code, so most of the codebase for both is developed together. SigmaX is basically cc2.0 minus a few features (folding certificates, PoS).

Your vote has been counted though, if the community is against this idea, we're not going to pursue it.

WHAT??

When is the snapshot? I have most of my holdings on the exchange too.

This needs more investigation.

They surely wouldn't dare sell-out curecoin holders and supporters would they?

Perhaps we are not understanding what he meant correctly?

Let's await some Q and A before we make any changes.

The last time I heard oh yeah we're starting a new project but the old project will be our main focus was Xc and blocknet.

If we do SigmaX, the snapshot will be after block 108000 (about three weeks away), and will be announced as soon as we decide on it.

The last thing we're trying to do is dilute the curecoin ecosystem--the logic is that, after release, cc2.0 will be forked and slapped with PoW, and that won't benefit Curecoin at all, since it's not the same development team, and Curecoin owners wouldn't have any stake in that 3rd party fork. So instead, we can create that fork, give Curecoin owners stake in the new network, and use it as a high-impact testing environment for cc2.0 updates.

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



It is essentially a clone of CC2.0 but will use PoW instead of certificates very little needs to be done to make the changes to enable SigmaX to launch. I'd rather find out some specifics before concocting conspiracy theories.

They can't handle one coin... what make you think they can handle two?

wake up bro those guys are f***ing with us

if they want to clone it before someone else does, then make it 100% POS and let the current holder have 100% of the premine

The all moto of Curecoin is POW is a waste of energy so seriously WTF

Both coins would be largely based on the same codebase, so there's not much overhead (on the programming side, at least) to maintaining both.

100% PoS is still heavily criticized, and has significant security flaws. However, if people think a 1:1 premine of SigmaX paid out to current Curecoin holders and then a PoW schedule that models original 1.0 mintage schedule would be a good solution, it's certainly on the table.

The motto of Curecoin is certainly that PoW is a waste of resources, both energy and equipment. That being said, PoW does serve one very legitimate purpose--the ultimate decentralized security. And while I (and the Curecoin community) believe that a blockchain can function perfectly fine using a certificate system which distributes network control to trusted public universities, there are many people in the community that demand PoW-based networks for a variety of use cases.

In summary, SigmaX aims to provide a PoW-secured quantum-computer-resistant blockchain. After cc2.0 launches, it's only a matter of time until a 3rd party forks it to a pure PoW system. SigmaX does that preemptively, and gives Curecoin holders stake in the PoW fork of the project they've supported. Additionally, since it would be a product of the Curecoin development team, any press or attention SigmaX gets will spill over to Curecoin. After the launch of both coins, SigmaX would be used for final testing of features, to act as a testing buffer in front of cc2.0. SigmaX targets a different part of the market (people who don't believe the certificate system is decentralized enough), although admittedly there is certainly overlap.

And again, if the majority of the Curecoin community is against this idea, we won't launch it.

At this point, the most likely plan for SigmaX (based on all of your guys' feedback) is this:
-Do a 1:1 issue of SigmaX to Curecoin. Emission schedules up for discussion (weekly for a year based on continual cc1.0 holding to avoid accidentally causing market swings?).
-Make the SigmaX mintage schedule model follow Curecoin 1.0 minus the PoS
-The conversion of Curecoin 1.0 to SigmaX doesn't involve burning--you keep your Curecoin, and you receive SigmaX. When 2.0 launches, your cc1.0 converts 1:1 to cc2.0, as has always been the plan.

What are people's thoughts on this idea?

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
BTCTT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 150


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 06:32:21 AM
 #3188

I agree 100% POS is not secured enough

I vote for a premine of 40/50% going to current holder of CC (1 to 2 months to claim your coin), 5% for the dev

Tesnet until CC 2.0 is ready and launch at the same time than CC 2.0






cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 06:54:42 AM
 #3189

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

████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
     ▄▄████████▄▄
   ▄██████████████▄
 ▄██████████████████▄
██████▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀█
██████     █████     █
██████     █████     █             ▄▄▄
██████     ▀▀▀▀▀     █        ███  ███
 ▀████                  ▄▄▄   ███  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄
   ▀██     ▄▄▄▄▄      ▄█████▄ ███  ███ ███  ███ ████████████▄
     ▀     █████      ███▄▄██ ███  ███ ███  ███ ███ ▀███ ▀███
           ▀▀███      ███▄▄▄  ███▄ ███ ███▄████ ███  ███  ███
               ▀       ▀████▀  ▀██ ███ ▀███▀███ ███  ███  ███
                   ▀█
████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
|
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 16, 2016, 06:57:11 AM
 #3190

I agree 100% POS is not secured enough

I vote for a premine of 40/50% going to current holder of CC (1 to 2 months to claim your coin), 5% for the dev

Tesnet until CC 2.0 is ready and launch at the same time than CC 2.0



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

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

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

On a sidenote, would people be interested in some sort of Q & A livestream in the near future?

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 07:23:40 AM
 #3191

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

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 16, 2016, 07:42:35 AM
 #3192

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

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

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

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

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
SalimNagamato
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
March 16, 2016, 07:47:38 AM
 #3193

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



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

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

not hashing, folding and curing (check FLDC merged-folding! reuse good GPUs)
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 16, 2016, 07:54:08 AM
 #3194

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



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

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

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

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

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 16, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
 #3195

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



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

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

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

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

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

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

Activity: 23


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2016, 01:21:37 AM
 #3196

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 17, 2016, 03:57:00 AM
 #3197

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

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

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

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

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


████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
     ▄▄████████▄▄
   ▄██████████████▄
 ▄██████████████████▄
██████▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀█
██████     █████     █
██████     █████     █             ▄▄▄
██████     ▀▀▀▀▀     █        ███  ███
 ▀████                  ▄▄▄   ███  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄  ▄▄
   ▀██     ▄▄▄▄▄      ▄█████▄ ███  ███ ███  ███ ████████████▄
     ▀     █████      ███▄▄██ ███  ███ ███  ███ ███ ▀███ ▀███
           ▀▀███      ███▄▄▄  ███▄ ███ ███▄████ ███  ███  ███
               ▀       ▀████▀  ▀██ ███ ▀███▀███ ███  ███  ███
                   ▀█
████████
████████
████
████





████
████
████████
████████
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
|
█  ████▀  █
█  ██▀▄█  █
█  ▀▄███  █
█  ████▀  █
██▀▄█
▀▄███
████▀
██▀▄█

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

█  █████  █
mavromixalakis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 135



View Profile
March 17, 2016, 08:15:12 PM
 #3198

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

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

Just some thoughts...
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2016, 12:06:03 AM
 #3199

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

We could remove the existing code from Github and only release it upon actual launch, and there's also ways to obfuscate code to make reverse-engineering harder, but neither are really in the spirit of the open-source cryptocurrency community, and obfuscating just makes the job harder. There's also advantages to having easily-reversable code--people with knowledge of Java can easily verify that executables we provide are safe. The problem about a future decentralized-PoW fork is mainly a symptom of a larger issue--that there's a large open spot in the market for that currency that Curecoin just doesn't cover. By providing both Curecoin 2.0 and SigmaX, I think we reasonably close in on both sides of the market, so forks would have to do something more innovative and beneficial to the community to succeed, which gets back to the fundamentals of open source.

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2016, 12:27:10 AM
 #3200

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

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

Just some thoughts...

Thanks for the kind words! We're not opposed to using some ideas from DPOS (like a consensus mechanism to decide on block timing and block size), but our goals for cc2.0/SigmaX (quantum-resistant signatures, mini-blockchain, etc.) can't be done as a Bitshares asset, since we wouldn't control the lower-level portion of the network.

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
Pages: « 1 ... 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 [160] 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 ... 221 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!