Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 03:39:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN]CureCoin - CURECOIN TEAM HAS TAKEN RANK 1 ON FOLDING@HOME!!!  (Read 668209 times)
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
October 18, 2016, 06:34:40 AM
 #3541

BTW, I am folding away, for almost ten years now.
I will try to convince GPU miners on local forum to switch to Cure.
What happened to http://1.curecoinmirror.com/calculatordemo.html?
It would help a lot in convincing them.

Great to have you on board folding for CURE. We always welcome experienced folders in our forum to help newbs.
There's no better way to re-purpose unprofitable GPU mining equipment than to put it to work folding proteins - and with merged folding (you get CURE plus Counterparty Tokens (FLDC,Scotcoin,MagicFLDC,PepeCash)), so your recommendation to GPU miners is golden. Combined this actually makes folding profitable on newer GPU hardware.

Yes - the profitability calculator disappeared after a server migration (along with its source  Angry ). We have to ask you to refer to the manual instructions until Vorksholk or I can get it re-written:

https://www.curecoin.net/knowledge-base/14-knowledge-base/about-curecoin/16-how-is-the-currency-divided-up/#ProfitabilityCalculator

or to get a rough idea of the cost per coin based an 12 different hardware profiles:

http : // tinyurl . com / curecoin-costs-of-folding-2016

I have a copy of the Curecoin 2.0 Whitepaper in a PDF by Vorksholk which was on Coinmirror earlier, in case that was lost too.  I was wondering why link was no longer good.  Now it's clear.

The only thing we lost when that server went down was the calculatordemo. All of the Curecoin 2.0 code, whitepaper, SigmaX, etc. is all backed up in multiple locations (although the whitepaper will be massively overhauled before launch).

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
1513395555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395555
Reply with quote  #2

1513395555
Report to moderator
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 18, 2016, 09:42:11 PM
 #3542

Dr Vijay Pande (founder of leader of folding@home) is keeping busy. Now Andreessen Horowitz is pretty keen on bitcoin and a general interest in all cool digital items (like f@h). The recent price spike that left people baffled... seems like it spiked oddly a few times recently. Since its still profitable even though the price is not holding the peak of what it just hit, team curecoin is growing very fast! At this pace we will break our own world record we hold on the folding@home network. So .. speculation.. once the spike in folders starts to slow down or even out - another price spike from interested parties could happen, making sure to keep the folders (miners) happy and in the green. Again just some fun with speculation. It could be any number of entities that created the price spike.

I think that instead of speculating and hoping for a new surge to come out of the blue, the guy in charge of PR in CC team should build a solid file about CC2.0 and send it to the Gates Foundation, Warren Buffet and all other potential philanthropist organizations around the world asking them to invest in CC to support F@H.

Someone needs to talk Bill Gates into having his foundation buy a $milllion or more CureCoin a month.
They could possibly write it off as a tax-deductable contrabution to folding research - I'm SURE he's got some good lawyers to make the argument stand up.

Actually not a M$ or more, just a few k$ per week would suffice to progressively and steadily increase the value of CC and at the end bring all GPU miners stop contributing to global warming spending tens of GWh just for PoW (and therefore producing a lot of CO2 for "nothing") and doing instead something useful (folding) while generating profit.
QuintLeo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
October 19, 2016, 05:02:13 AM
 #3543


Actually not a M$ or more, just a few k$ per week would suffice to progressively and steadily increase the value of CC and at the end bring all GPU miners stop contributing to global warming spending tens of GWh just for PoW (and therefore producing a lot of CO2 for "nothing") and doing instead something useful (folding) while generating profit.

 I noticed we had a big buyer today, did the math on their near-10k buy (might have been 10k before I got on to check the exchange) and a few $k a week WOULD be noticeable.

 On the other hand, a $Million as a "floor" order would be nice too, especially if it shifted up a bit every day or even every week.

ryohazuki89
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 12:43:08 AM
 #3544

So .. speculation.. once the spike in folders starts to slow down or even out - another price spike from interested parties could happen, making sure to keep the folders (miners) happy and in the green. Again just some fun with speculation. It could be any number of entities that created the price spike.

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

Edit: I don't want to sound like a downer, I have huge personal investment in CureCoin myself. However, I just had to say it is a very high risk / high reward gamble. Even more than bitcoin was Smiley

Good job gaining the new folders guys. It seemed like the spike in folders to 200M PPD caused the spike price this time.. Simply too fun to watch.
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 20, 2016, 04:07:34 PM
 #3545

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

In my opinion it's sad that the CC team was somehow lacking ambition for CC2.0... Indeed their aim should have been to create THE ULTIMATE COIN that would send to trashcan all the useless global-warming-increasing GPU-based coins out there and concurrence Bitcoin, because being the ultimate cryptocurrency would push the coin to the top of the market cap and conversely offer tens, maybe hundreds of GPPD to F@H.

But for CC2.0 to be the ultimate cryptocurrency, I think they should:
   - Remove all the flaws of CC 1.0 (mainly the premine -> DONE)
   - Not add flaws in CC 2.0 (the certification authorities)
   - Add massive advantages over Bitcoin (either new or inspired from other popular coins):
      - Protection against quantum computing (DONE)
      - Block time under 30s to allow effective payments
      - Anonymous transactions (Vorksholk argued that it might allow illegal stuff, but cash payments in US$ allow it too and they don't help F@H in compensation)

Maybe SigmaX or CC3.0 will be the ultimate coin...

And then, having the technically ultimate coin that moreover helps F@H, CC's PR should contact all major merchants accepting Bitcoin and convince them accepting Curecoin.

ryohazuki89
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 21, 2016, 03:34:38 AM
 #3546

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

In my opinion it's sad that the CC team was somehow lacking ambition for CC2.0... Indeed their aim should have been to create THE ULTIMATE COIN that would send to trashcan all the useless global-warming-increasing GPU-based coins out there and concurrence Bitcoin, because being the ultimate cryptocurrency would push the coin to the top of the market cap and conversely offer tens, maybe hundreds of GPPD to F@H.

But for CC2.0 to be the ultimate cryptocurrency, I think they should:
   - Remove all the flaws of CC 1.0 (mainly the premine -> DONE)
   - Not add flaws in CC 2.0 (the certification authorities)
   - Add massive advantages over Bitcoin (either new or inspired from other popular coins):
      - Protection against quantum computing (DONE)
      - Block time under 30s to allow effective payments
      - Anonymous transactions (Vorksholk argued that it might allow illegal stuff, but cash payments in US$ allow it too and they don't help F@H in compensation)

Maybe SigmaX or CC3.0 will be the ultimate coin...

And then, having the technically ultimate coin that moreover helps F@H, CC's PR should contact all major merchants accepting Bitcoin and convince them accepting Curecoin.





Regardless, they've done something really great even if they can't fulfill those requirements. Right now I'm just looking forward to the new website with hopefully a fancy "sneak peak" diagram of how CC 2.0 plans to work.
cygnusxi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396


CureCoin Lead Dev


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2016, 05:50:25 AM
 #3547


.... .. speculation.. once the spike in folders starts to slow down or even out - another price spike from interested parties could happen, making sure to keep the folders (miners) happy and in the green. Again just some fun with speculation. It could be any number of entities that created the price spike.

.... We are currently at 80% of what is needed to break the old world record.    


We are at 90% of the old record we set at ~ 19 petaflops on the f@h network now. Just yesterday the market price spiked 50% and found a new (pretty large) buy wall at 8k sats. So still profitable especially merge folding with fldc.

The old logo is being phased out. If you do a fresh git clone right now you will get the new client. Other minor updates were done at that time.

As to the comment about a lack of ambition for Curecoin 2.0, to clarify its not that we dont want to, at this point it is ~95%+ launch ready on Vorksholks end, but we are stuck in a waiting game with the politics of launching new technology. Not too different from we launched Curecoin 1.0

As for Curecoin 1.x I am glad to be able to focus on more updates to the core system with the help of the new core team members. So dont be too quick to write of the value off curecoin 1.x versions as I do plan to keep updating it and expanding the core team further.

The new theme removes the old coin logo completely and will now be themed around this logo



Its less of an eye soar then the old logo me thinks ;-)

 90% of the speed when we set the current record, and another large volume price spike to increase folders so jump on for some folding while the market is good and lets break another record in distributed computing   Grin

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757 MergeFold with FoldingCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781352.0
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 22, 2016, 08:45:26 AM
 #3548

The old logo is being phased out. If you do a fresh git clone right now you will get the new client. Other minor updates were done at that time.

Maybe you could try to taint in red or dark red the two small "atoms" of the logo?

I compiled under Linux the new wallet and started it just copying my old wallet.dat file in the .curecoin folder.
Looks like there is a minor bug in the code as in the "Recent Transactions" area I get the last transactions from my previous wallet client and the area is not updated with recent transactions. Also in the "Transactions" tab I have 3 old PoS transactions staying on top with the "?" mark and the amount between [].

90% of the speed when we set the current record, and another large volume price spike to increase folders so jump on for some folding while the market is good and lets break another record in distributed computing   Grin

It's a matter of days now Smiley Maybe you could contact the Guiness of Records? It would be good advertisement for Curecoin...
And before the end of November, Curecoin Team should be #2.
And we might be #1 before the end of 2017!! Cheesy
cygnusxi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396


CureCoin Lead Dev


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2016, 09:41:55 PM
 #3549


I compiled under Linux the new wallet and started it just copying my old wallet.dat file in the .curecoin folder.
Looks like there is a minor bug in the code as in the "Recent Transactions" area I get the last transactions from my previous wallet client and the area is not updated with recent transactions. Also in the "Transactions" tab I have 3 old PoS transactions staying on top with the "?" mark and the amount between [].

Try running -rescan on command line the next time you load your wallet, also there is a method here that will get rid of the gray stake orphan blocks > https://www.curecoin.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3875
If you can post a screen shot(s) I should be able to confirm.

It's a matter of days now Smiley Maybe you could contact the Guiness of Records? It would be good advertisement for Curecoin...
And before the end of November, Curecoin Team should be #2.
And we might be #1 before the end of 2017!! Cheesy

Sounds like a good idea! The increasing network speed sure is cranking out some research. I tell my friends about this "Right now Curecoin is kicking ass on the f@h network in ways only team Curecoin knows how to do  Grin "

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757 MergeFold with FoldingCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781352.0
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
October 22, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
 #3550

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

In my opinion it's sad that the CC team was somehow lacking ambition for CC2.0... Indeed their aim should have been to create THE ULTIMATE COIN that would send to trashcan all the useless global-warming-increasing GPU-based coins out there and concurrence Bitcoin, because being the ultimate cryptocurrency would push the coin to the top of the market cap and conversely offer tens, maybe hundreds of GPPD to F@H.

But for CC2.0 to be the ultimate cryptocurrency, I think they should:
   - Remove all the flaws of CC 1.0 (mainly the premine -> DONE)
   - Not add flaws in CC 2.0 (the certification authorities)
   - Add massive advantages over Bitcoin (either new or inspired from other popular coins):
      - Protection against quantum computing (DONE)
      - Block time under 30s to allow effective payments
      - Anonymous transactions (Vorksholk argued that it might allow illegal stuff, but cash payments in US$ allow it too and they don't help F@H in compensation)

Maybe SigmaX or CC3.0 will be the ultimate coin...

And then, having the technically ultimate coin that moreover helps F@H, CC's PR should contact all major merchants accepting Bitcoin and convince them accepting Curecoin.



Let me preface this by saying these are really good debates to have--and if you have specific ideas to address some of the concerns (namely certificates and WU validation of a dynamic WU system), we'd love to hear and discuss them. Here's how we're currently seeing these issues:

Currently, the certificate system looks like the best way to be able to validate peoples' contributions to scientific computation networks. Bitcoin works because PoW uses SHA-256D which everyone can validate--they know the exact requirements and validation procedure for any PoW. Since the very nature of scientific computing is large workloads which continually evolve and change format (not everyone is folding the same molecule in the same way--in fact, aside from redundancy, no one is), this means of decentralized work validation isn't possible. It's really a tradeoff--technically it's possible to create a PoW based on validating a computation related to simulating a single molecular system, but then it's unusable as a means of scientific research because research teams can't change the molecule, can't change what about it is being simulated, etc. They also can't improve the software (aside from optimizing the software to produce the same results faster), and the workloads would have to be unimaginably small to be practical PoW targets (because everyone needs to recompute them). It's also a DDoS vulnerability to the network, because people could pretend to mine a ton of blocks with bogus WUs, and everyone would have to recompute the entire WU to see that it's false. With Bitcoin it's nanoseconds to compute a double-SHA256 hash. With even a small molecular simulation it's on the scale of seconds to minutes, which means someone could submit a few bogus blocks to the network, and the entire network would spend an hour frozen while it reprocesses every WU just to find out that they weren't valid PoW submissions. We also couldn't have a short blocktime for this reason, because even the slowest full nodes would need to validate blocks much faster than they are transmitted, and making the PoW validation require more than a trivial amount of time requires that the blocktime leaves a large enough window to ensure that peers aren't being "buried" by PoW validations, even ignoring the DDoS factor.

We are considering a pretty fast blocktime--in the range of 1 to 2 minutes. 30s might be a bit short, but our goal is to get it as low as reasonably possible without causing any issues on the network. Anonymous transactions aren't our goal.

As far as motivation, CureCoin is waiting for a technology I'm currently working on to become available that will drastically improve CureCoin's network security. The technology isn't built for CureCoin specifically, but for the entire ecosystem to use, and CureCoin will be one of the first adopters. Update to come very soon (Tuesday) about what exactly the technology is. Smiley

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
ryohazuki89
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 22, 2016, 09:57:48 PM
 #3551

The new emblem reminds me too much of Worldcoin, the most failed coin of all time that was previously at the top 5 marketcap (now 95th).
http://puu.sh/rS76M/05de46e642.png

We're doomed.

edit: sorry cygnusxi, didn't see your epic post above. We're not doomed.
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 22, 2016, 11:49:33 PM
 #3552

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

In my opinion it's sad that the CC team was somehow lacking ambition for CC2.0... Indeed their aim should have been to create THE ULTIMATE COIN that would send to trashcan all the useless global-warming-increasing GPU-based coins out there and concurrence Bitcoin, because being the ultimate cryptocurrency would push the coin to the top of the market cap and conversely offer tens, maybe hundreds of GPPD to F@H.

But for CC2.0 to be the ultimate cryptocurrency, I think they should:
   - Remove all the flaws of CC 1.0 (mainly the premine -> DONE)
   - Not add flaws in CC 2.0 (the certification authorities)
   - Add massive advantages over Bitcoin (either new or inspired from other popular coins):
      - Protection against quantum computing (DONE)
      - Block time under 30s to allow effective payments
      - Anonymous transactions (Vorksholk argued that it might allow illegal stuff, but cash payments in US$ allow it too and they don't help F@H in compensation)

Maybe SigmaX or CC3.0 will be the ultimate coin...

And then, having the technically ultimate coin that moreover helps F@H, CC's PR should contact all major merchants accepting Bitcoin and convince them accepting Curecoin.



Let me preface this by saying these are really good debates to have--and if you have specific ideas to address some of the concerns (namely certificates and WU validation of a dynamic WU system), we'd love to hear and discuss them. Here's how we're currently seeing these issues:

Currently, the certificate system looks like the best way to be able to validate peoples' contributions to scientific computation networks. Bitcoin works because PoW uses SHA-256D which everyone can validate--they know the exact requirements and validation procedure for any PoW. Since the very nature of scientific computing is large workloads which continually evolve and change format (not everyone is folding the same molecule in the same way--in fact, aside from redundancy, no one is), this means of decentralized work validation isn't possible. It's really a tradeoff--technically it's possible to create a PoW based on validating a computation related to simulating a single molecular system, but then it's unusable as a means of scientific research because research teams can't change the molecule, can't change what about it is being simulated, etc. They also can't improve the software (aside from optimizing the software to produce the same results faster), and the workloads would have to be unimaginably small to be practical PoW targets (because everyone needs to recompute them). It's also a DDoS vulnerability to the network, because people could pretend to mine a ton of blocks with bogus WUs, and everyone would have to recompute the entire WU to see that it's false. With Bitcoin it's nanoseconds to compute a double-SHA256 hash. With even a small molecular simulation it's on the scale of seconds to minutes, which means someone could submit a few bogus blocks to the network, and the entire network would spend an hour frozen while it reprocesses every WU just to find out that they weren't valid PoW submissions. We also couldn't have a short blocktime for this reason, because even the slowest full nodes would need to validate blocks much faster than they are transmitted, and making the PoW validation require more than a trivial amount of time requires that the blocktime leaves a large enough window to ensure that peers aren't being "buried" by PoW validations, even ignoring the DDoS factor.

We are considering a pretty fast blocktime--in the range of 1 to 2 minutes. 30s might be a bit short, but our goal is to get it as low as reasonably possible without causing any issues on the network. Anonymous transactions aren't our goal.

Thanks for your answer and the news!!

While I understand that you wanted to remove SHA256D PoW from CC2.0 because it is a waste of electricity, adding a third party in the loop (the certification authorities, who in the case of F@H we are not even sure are willing to participate, even though the recent results of Curecoin team might help convincing them) goes against the concept of decentralization which is one of the pillars of the success of blockchain technology and Bitcoin.

If we want to replace Bitcoin someday, we need the trust of investors so they get ready to buy lots of M$ of Curecoin. And for that we should be as decentralized as possible and not have vulnerabilities Bitcoin doesn't have (a third party is a potential vulnerability and even if the problems an outside hacker or an insider at Stanford might create could be a posteriori corrected in the blockchain it would create hassle, would make bad publicity for the coin and make its value drop...).

As far as motivation, CureCoin is waiting for a technology I'm currently working on to become available that will drastically improve CureCoin's network security. The technology isn't built for CureCoin specifically, but for the entire ecosystem to use, and CureCoin will be one of the first adopters. Update to come very soon (Tuesday) about what exactly the technology is. Smiley

Haha, nice teaser!! Cheesy On Tuesday we're going to break the record of people reading this topic! Cheesy
Vorksholk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2016, 01:49:53 AM
 #3553

It's interesting to see what will happen. In the end, in my opinion, potential worldwide merchant acceptance is really the only thing that pushes coins to the top of the market cap. And that simply cannot happen with the current centralized CureCoin 1.0 . .

In my opinion it's sad that the CC team was somehow lacking ambition for CC2.0... Indeed their aim should have been to create THE ULTIMATE COIN that would send to trashcan all the useless global-warming-increasing GPU-based coins out there and concurrence Bitcoin, because being the ultimate cryptocurrency would push the coin to the top of the market cap and conversely offer tens, maybe hundreds of GPPD to F@H.

But for CC2.0 to be the ultimate cryptocurrency, I think they should:
   - Remove all the flaws of CC 1.0 (mainly the premine -> DONE)
   - Not add flaws in CC 2.0 (the certification authorities)
   - Add massive advantages over Bitcoin (either new or inspired from other popular coins):
      - Protection against quantum computing (DONE)
      - Block time under 30s to allow effective payments
      - Anonymous transactions (Vorksholk argued that it might allow illegal stuff, but cash payments in US$ allow it too and they don't help F@H in compensation)

Maybe SigmaX or CC3.0 will be the ultimate coin...

And then, having the technically ultimate coin that moreover helps F@H, CC's PR should contact all major merchants accepting Bitcoin and convince them accepting Curecoin.



Let me preface this by saying these are really good debates to have--and if you have specific ideas to address some of the concerns (namely certificates and WU validation of a dynamic WU system), we'd love to hear and discuss them. Here's how we're currently seeing these issues:

Currently, the certificate system looks like the best way to be able to validate peoples' contributions to scientific computation networks. Bitcoin works because PoW uses SHA-256D which everyone can validate--they know the exact requirements and validation procedure for any PoW. Since the very nature of scientific computing is large workloads which continually evolve and change format (not everyone is folding the same molecule in the same way--in fact, aside from redundancy, no one is), this means of decentralized work validation isn't possible. It's really a tradeoff--technically it's possible to create a PoW based on validating a computation related to simulating a single molecular system, but then it's unusable as a means of scientific research because research teams can't change the molecule, can't change what about it is being simulated, etc. They also can't improve the software (aside from optimizing the software to produce the same results faster), and the workloads would have to be unimaginably small to be practical PoW targets (because everyone needs to recompute them). It's also a DDoS vulnerability to the network, because people could pretend to mine a ton of blocks with bogus WUs, and everyone would have to recompute the entire WU to see that it's false. With Bitcoin it's nanoseconds to compute a double-SHA256 hash. With even a small molecular simulation it's on the scale of seconds to minutes, which means someone could submit a few bogus blocks to the network, and the entire network would spend an hour frozen while it reprocesses every WU just to find out that they weren't valid PoW submissions. We also couldn't have a short blocktime for this reason, because even the slowest full nodes would need to validate blocks much faster than they are transmitted, and making the PoW validation require more than a trivial amount of time requires that the blocktime leaves a large enough window to ensure that peers aren't being "buried" by PoW validations, even ignoring the DDoS factor.

We are considering a pretty fast blocktime--in the range of 1 to 2 minutes. 30s might be a bit short, but our goal is to get it as low as reasonably possible without causing any issues on the network. Anonymous transactions aren't our goal.

Thanks for your answer and the news!!

While I understand that you wanted to remove SHA256D PoW from CC2.0 because it is a waste of electricity, adding a third party in the loop (the certification authorities, who in the case of F@H we are not even sure are willing to participate, even though the recent results of Curecoin team might help convincing them) goes against the concept of decentralization which is one of the pillars of the success of blockchain technology and Bitcoin.

If we want to replace Bitcoin someday, we need the trust of investors so they get ready to buy lots of M$ of Curecoin. And for that we should be as decentralized as possible and not have vulnerabilities Bitcoin doesn't have (a third party is a potential vulnerability and even if the problems an outside hacker or an insider at Stanford might create could be a posteriori corrected in the blockchain it would create hassle, would make bad publicity for the coin and make its value drop...).

As far as motivation, CureCoin is waiting for a technology I'm currently working on to become available that will drastically improve CureCoin's network security. The technology isn't built for CureCoin specifically, but for the entire ecosystem to use, and CureCoin will be one of the first adopters. Update to come very soon (Tuesday) about what exactly the technology is. Smiley

Haha, nice teaser!! Cheesy On Tuesday we're going to break the record of people reading this topic! Cheesy

We're certainly open to ideas if anyone can think of a way to enable universities and other research institutes to still create work for which miners are rewarded without involving certificates (or a central service which just holds Curecoin and pays it out).

The announcement on Tuesday will clarify why a certificate blockchain isn't a problem for network security (double-spends, blockchain forking, etc.) though Smiley The main issue with the certificate blockchain is simply a university being able to give themselves more Curecoin than they should be getting--it doesn't let them attack the consensus of the network to any concerning degree with the technology we're working on.

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757.0
ryohazuki89
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 23, 2016, 08:51:09 AM
 #3554

I'm just glad things are moving forward. I feel good about this one. Keep it guys!
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 23, 2016, 09:08:51 AM
 #3555

We're certainly open to ideas if anyone can think of a way to enable universities and other research institutes to still create work for which miners are rewarded without involving certificates (or a central service which just holds Curecoin and pays it out).

In the same way as on Bitcoin, the network generates the 50BTC when a block is found and attributes it to who solved the block, couldn't we have "the curecoin network" (I guess the PoW client) proportionally distribute the 52CC to folders based on the last day stats given by F@H (and have the fairness of this checked during the confirmation process)?

The announcement on Tuesday will clarify why a certificate blockchain isn't a problem for network security (double-spends, blockchain forking, etc.) though Smiley The main issue with the certificate blockchain is simply a university being able to give themselves more Curecoin than they should be getting--it doesn't let them attack the consensus of the network to any concerning degree with the technology we're working on.

That's cool. Yet can't you add a decentralized automatic checking of the fact that the university hasn't given itself more Curecoin than expected? The idea is that if we want trust from investors we need to have a system that self-checks itself and is secure by itself, not that rests upon honesty and goodwill of any parties of it.
URSAY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918



View Profile
October 23, 2016, 01:27:28 PM
 #3556

The new theme removes the old coin logo completely and will now be themed around this logo



Looks like some kind of prototype logo design for the original iMac.  A bit dated.  But honestly I wasn't a big fan of the original logo either.

Some say cure is too centralized.  In the past any discussion about an improved logo was ignored or perhaps overlooked.  If I recall correctly, a contest was held for a new logo and a winner was never chosen.

Have you considered allowing community designers to bring cure's look into the present?  Or will the centralization continue from every aspect, down to the logo and look of the coin?

Thanks for your consideration.  Smiley
cygnusxi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 396


CureCoin Lead Dev


View Profile WWW
October 23, 2016, 08:17:45 PM
 #3557

The new theme removes the old coin logo completely and will now be themed around this logo



Looks like some kind of prototype logo design for the original iMac.  A bit dated.  But honestly I wasn't a big fan of the original logo either.

Some say cure is too centralized.  In the past any discussion about an improved logo was ignored or perhaps overlooked.  If I recall correctly, a contest was held for a new logo and a winner was never chosen.

Have you considered allowing community designers to bring cure's look into the present?  Or will the centralization continue from every aspect, down to the logo and look of the coin?

Thanks for your consideration.  Smiley


As I recall the community voted for a purple teddy bear and some other things just as lame. Also I'd glady accept help but most "community members" act more like spectators with lots of opinions and offer zero real help.

Find me a logo that resonates with everyone else on the forum and I'll use it.

As far as centralization. Did btc not have an epic battle over 2mb blocks? Did ethereum spilt into 2 coins proving that they are so centralized they will go against contracts written in their own code? Decentralization is an illusion these developers want you to believe. Nothing can ever be completely decentralized because software has humans that write it and do things like fork ethereum into 2 chains showing the largest act of centralization power ever. Curecoin stuck to its coin parameters without human induced forks.

Curecoin is serving its purpose and we are about to break the world record for dcn computing once again. Plenty of people believe in this project and with good cause. I've been on this forum being honest with people for years. Sure honesty is crap in a trust less world unless you are willing to take that chance on what many agree is still one of the best alts around. The fact that we have stayed in the top 100 on market cap for over 2 years should speak for itself. So many "perfectly decentralized" coins have died while curecoin continues to move waves in the scientific community.

Fold Proteins, earn cryptos! CureCoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603757 MergeFold with FoldingCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781352.0
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 24, 2016, 12:02:52 AM
 #3558

Also I'd glady accept help but most "community members" act more like spectators with lots of opinions and offer zero real help.

Well, you should see our opinions as real help. It gives you different insights from different vantage points on different topics. Then you can try to make the best decision...

Curecoin is serving its purpose and we are about to break the world record for dcn computing once again. Plenty of people believe in this project and with good cause. I've been on this forum being honest with people for years. Sure honesty is crap in a trust less world unless you are willing to take that chance on what many agree is still one of the best alts around. The fact that we have stayed in the top 100 on market cap for over 2 years should speak for itself. So many "perfectly decentralized" coins have died while curecoin continues to move waves in the scientific community.

Honesty is a great thing and I guess a bunch of Curecoin team members have a scientific/engineering background so we value it. But my feeling is that non-philantropic investors (i.e. sharks) who might be willing to put a lot of money (I mean millions and more) in a cryptocurrency (to make more money) will probably choose one that does not rely on honesty... And since their investment would significantly increase the coin's market cap and value and bring more people to folding, we should address in advance any reluctance they may have so they choose us!
shaka256
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
October 24, 2016, 12:47:07 AM
 #3559


I compiled under Linux the new wallet and started it just copying my old wallet.dat file in the .curecoin folder.
Looks like there is a minor bug in the code as in the "Recent Transactions" area I get the last transactions from my previous wallet client and the area is not updated with recent transactions. Also in the "Transactions" tab I have 3 old PoS transactions staying on top with the "?" mark and the amount between [].

Try running -rescan on command line the next time you load your wallet, also there is a method here that will get rid of the gray stake orphan blocks > https://www.curecoin.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3875

The -rescan option didn't do anything.
Actually the old transactions I see in the "Recent Transactions" area are the 3 orphan ones from the "Transactions" tab.
I'll try the export wallet to see if it helps.
shai_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
October 24, 2016, 03:41:06 AM
 #3560


I compiled under Linux the new wallet and started it just copying my old wallet.dat file in the .curecoin folder.
Looks like there is a minor bug in the code as in the "Recent Transactions" area I get the last transactions from my previous wallet client and the area is not updated with recent transactions. Also in the "Transactions" tab I have 3 old PoS transactions staying on top with the "?" mark and the amount between [].

Try running -rescan on command line the next time you load your wallet, also there is a method here that will get rid of the gray stake orphan blocks > https://www.curecoin.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3875

The -rescan option didn't do anything.
Actually the old transactions I see in the "Recent Transactions" area are the 3 orphan ones from the "Transactions" tab.
I'll try the export wallet to see if it helps.

0. backup wallet
1. try to run with -salvagewallet
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 »
  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!