Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 08:27:31 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 ... 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]CureCoin - CURECOIN TEAM HAS TAKEN RANK 1 ON FOLDING@HOME!!!  (Read 668208 times)
SalimNagamato
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
March 18, 2016, 05:28:42 AM
 #3201

i'm against having CC1, SigmaX and CC1 holder only getting small portion and waiting for it forever in a slow distribution (we already waited for 2 years)
besides SigmaX and CC1 might devalue each other because they will need to share same marketcap
and then CC2 will devalue CC1 and SigmaX
we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2) ?

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

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

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

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

Just some thoughts...

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

not hashing, folding and curing (check FLDC merged-folding! reuse good GPUs)
1513369651
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513369651

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513369651
Reply with quote  #2

1513369651
Report to moderator
1513369651
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513369651

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513369651
Reply with quote  #2

1513369651
Report to moderator
1513369651
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513369651

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513369651
Reply with quote  #2

1513369651
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513369651
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513369651

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513369651
Reply with quote  #2

1513369651
Report to moderator
1513369651
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513369651

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513369651
Reply with quote  #2

1513369651
Report to moderator
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 19, 2016, 05:35:58 AM
 #3202


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.


Even high end cpu's produce very little ppd compared to modern graphics cards so I'd have to disagree that they are "better utilized" for folding. However the suggestion to use BURST pow is interesting HDDs are cheap and readily accessible to all, why not keep it simple and leave the asics out of it?




xandry
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
March 19, 2016, 02:04:11 PM
 #3203

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

     ╔═╗ ╦ ═╦═╔══╔══╗╔══╗╔══          OFFICIAL WEBSITE | TWITTER  | FACEBOOK
==== ╠═╝╗║  ║ ║  ║  ║╠═╔╝╠══ ====    OFFICIAL F.A.Q.  | TELEGRAM | TECHCHART     
     ╚══╝╩  ╩ ╚══╚══╝╚ ╚═╚══          10 MB, segwit, BTC -> BTX, airdrops +++
YJ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
March 19, 2016, 04:02:16 PM
 #3204

I completely agree. I'm reading last two pages of this thread and still does not understanding why do we need a new cryptocurrency? I know everyone want get some bonus when he is just holding curecoin but I strongly doubt that it is worth doing some SigmaX.

Well, if I understood well, CC2 while bringing a lot of improvements, will also bring the need of Certification Authorities to sign certificates in order to remove the need for PoW by mining. This centralization (and the trust in Certification Authorities) might be a hinder for people to invest in it and there is a risk the value of CC2 won't take-off.

However due to the open source, somebody could "steal" all the "good" improvements in CC2 and easily create a coin that would take advantage of all the CC dev team work without rewarding folders. By creating SigmaX, that one alternate decentralized coin would already exist and if CC2 won't take-off maybe SigmaX will and us folders would not have lost everything. It's like betting on two different horses, both of them being ours.

While PoW by mining is indeed a waste of electricity, it provides the decentralization that is good for trust (and investors need trust... cf. Bitcoin) so in my opinion CC2 should have been CC1 + (all the stuff that makes it quantum computing resistant) - the premine. So there is a chance SigmaX might do better than CC2.

I would therefore suggest no big premine for SigmaX (it was a main criticism against CC) just a 1:1 CC:SigmaX distribution (like for CC2) and then run in parallel the two coins (distribution based on folding ppd) and see which one takes-off.
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 12:10:25 AM
 #3205

I think what they are saying is anyone can clone sigmaX and just slap pow on it?
So they are making it have POW to stop cloners producing something we can't provide.

I would favour no sigmaX and totally close sourcing cc2 so curecoin supporters are the only beneficiaries. This is what a lot of coins do. Keep closed source for a good headstart and release maybe later.

However if they won't close source it then we have to have sigmaX with 50% shared to cure coin and 50% for mining.

For me though. You will still get clones that give 100% pow from the start and people not supporting cure coin 1 will just go with that anyway.

So my vote close source it all and lock it down for as long as possible. Then release perhaps when we have more updates and improvements so again we are a step ahead.


████████
████████
████
████





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





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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 12:31:27 AM
 #3206

I think what they are saying is anyone can clone sigmaX and just slap pow on it?
So they are making it have POW to stop cloners producing something we can't provide.

I would favour no sigmaX and totally close sourcing cc2 so curecoin supporters are the only beneficiaries. This is what a lot of coins do. Keep closed source for a good headstart and release maybe later.

However if they won't close source it then we have to have sigmaX with 50% shared to cure coin and 50% for mining.

For me though. You will still get clones that give 100% pow from the start and people not supporting cure coin 1 will just go with that anyway.

So my vote close source it all and lock it down for as long as possible. Then release perhaps when we have more updates and improvements so again we are a step ahead.



Due to the ease in reverse engineering Java closed source isn't really a viable option, also there is a certain level of trust required in closed source crypto and any crypto that is closed source is not truly decentralized. I feel that the best possible balance is being struck by being open source and releasing SigmaX to CC holders by way of a block subsidy instead of premine. Also sticking with the values of CC I think that SigmaX pow should be done in an energy efficient way (for example Burst style pow), lets not on one hand being saying pow is wasteful and on the other hand be promoting the use of power hungry asics for pow.
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 12:50:44 AM
 #3207

I think what they are saying is anyone can clone sigmaX and just slap pow on it?
So they are making it have POW to stop cloners producing something we can't provide.

I would favour no sigmaX and totally close sourcing cc2 so curecoin supporters are the only beneficiaries. This is what a lot of coins do. Keep closed source for a good headstart and release maybe later.

However if they won't close source it then we have to have sigmaX with 50% shared to cure coin and 50% for mining.

For me though. You will still get clones that give 100% pow from the start and people not supporting cure coin 1 will just go with that anyway.

So my vote close source it all and lock it down for as long as possible. Then release perhaps when we have more updates and improvements so again we are a step ahead.



Due to the ease in reverse engineering Java closed source isn't really a viable option, also there is a certain level of trust required in closed source crypto and any crypto that is closed source is not truly decentralized. I feel that the best possible balance is being struck by being open source and releasing SigmaX to CC holders by way of a block subsidy instead of premine. Also sticking with the values of CC I think that SigmaX pow should be done in an energy efficient way (for example Burst style pow), lets not on one hand being saying pow is wasteful and on the other hand be promoting the use of power hungry asics for pow.

Sorry to hear they can't close source it. Dark did and they did it for long enough to get enough head start before opening it. It's too bad java can't be locked down for a while. Maybe a ton of bogus code code be injected? 1000000s of lines of junk? I'm not sure but anything to give 3-6 months of use of the code they created before every copy and paster grabs it.

████████
████████
████
████





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





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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 01:11:34 AM
 #3208


Maybe a ton of bogus code code be injected? 1000000s of lines of junk? I'm not sure but anything to give 3-6 months of use of the code they created before every copy and paster grabs it.


It would be possible to obfuscate the code as the dev has mentioned but that only provides limited protection any one with the skill and inclination would make trivial work of bypassing such measures.

bardacuda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 10:06:39 AM
 #3209

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

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

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

Just my 2 million satoshis. Take it for what you will.
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 10:27:16 AM
 #3210

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

I see the reasoning behind the SigmaX, and just wanted to say (even though I don't own 10% of the Cure coins or anything) I think you should go ahead with it, and just give some % of it (maybe 10%-ish) to the people folding. It should be some % that is small enough that it doesn't turn people away/make someone fork it anyway, but still add incentive to/reward folders.


With what is proposed thus far folders would receive SigmaX simply by keeping their curecoins from folding in a local wallet, by means of a block subsidy from SigmaX to be paid to curecoin holders weekly.
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


View Profile
March 20, 2016, 02:24:53 PM
 #3211

wonder what time scale we're talking about now?

████████
████████
████
████





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





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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

▀▄███

█  ████▀  █

█  ██▀▄█  █

█  ▀▄███  █

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

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 20, 2016, 11:15:04 PM
 #3212

i'm against having CC1, SigmaX and CC1 holder only getting small portion and waiting for it forever in a slow distribution (we already waited for 2 years)
besides SigmaX and CC1 might devalue each other because they will need to share same marketcap
and then CC2 will devalue CC1 and SigmaX
we don't need 3 coins. we need one coin.
i would prefer waiting and have CC2 only, swap 1:1 of CC1:CC2 and leave CC1 chain (after exchanges delist CC1 and list CC2) ?

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

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

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

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

Just some thoughts...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wonder what time scale we're talking about now?

Initial release of SigmaX testnet (using CPU-bound SHA-256 initially) in the next 24 hours. Based on how that performs, we'll set a timeline for tidying up the shared code between the two currencies, and subsequent launch of cc2.0.

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

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
March 20, 2016, 11:16:44 PM
 #3213

So, status update:

In the next ~24 hours, we're gonna release a testnet of SigmaX, which will be using a CPU-mined SHA256. I really like the idea of hard-drive mining, so I'm aiming to switch out the SHA256 to hard-drive mining for SigmaX's next testnet release. We'll do a bit of testing on this thread first, and when it seems ready we'll make a separate thread dedicated to SigmaX.

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

Activity: 150


View Profile
March 21, 2016, 07:16:36 AM
 #3214

This price move will bring a lot of new folder that is very good news Wink

lets hope we get a few whales interested in this coin and then 1/2 usd per coin is possible

Happy I stick to my guns... I was really close on giving up on this project, happy the dev prove me wrong...

Curecoin for the Win!!!
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 21, 2016, 09:37:52 AM
 #3215

such a shame someone had to go dump that price down...
m4nki
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
March 21, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
 #3216

Following with interest. Smiley

cryptonit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


CVO Diamond Foundation (Visionary)


View Profile WWW
March 21, 2016, 12:13:44 PM
 #3217

very complictaed stuff that 2 coin solution
as i understajnd u wanted to keep miners and folders happy

so why not make just CC2 30% blocks POW blocks and 70% blocks folding blocks?

why two coins?

i think with such a solution u still can keep the non centralized solution fans happy

if u make only the POW part mechanic decide about the true chain

this way certificates used to secure injection of bad folding blocks

but the power about what is the true chain is still on POW and decentralized

update: regarding wasting energy and POW the way to create no additional waste is to use merged mining
this way no additional energy have to be burned

but i still think POW is just a bad choice

a block consensus like in NEM/XEM is ideal no waste of power
and none of pure POS flaws inside
in fact i think the most advances blockchain consence mechanism in existence

details u can find in whitepaper area "prove of importance"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wAe2jt1MMzYVJhUUFnMHQxZ1U/view?pref=2&pli=1

techbytes
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1582


Point. Click. Blockchain


View Profile
March 21, 2016, 01:52:20 PM
 #3218

So, status update:

In the next ~24 hours, we're gonna release a testnet of SigmaX, which will be using a CPU-mined SHA256. I really like the idea of hard-drive mining, so I'm aiming to switch out the SHA256 to hard-drive mining for SigmaX's next testnet release. We'll do a bit of testing on this thread first, and when it seems ready we'll make a separate thread dedicated to SigmaX.


CC2 algo will stay the same, SHA256?


-tb-

yofevo1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 174


View Profile
March 21, 2016, 05:31:45 PM
 #3219

price fast up and fast down  , it's not good
merc84
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 799


View Profile
March 21, 2016, 08:59:43 PM
 #3220

price fast up and fast down  , it's not good

Someone messed his pants too early.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 ... 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!