[ANN] CureCoin 2.0 is live - Mandatory Update is available now - DEC 2018

[merc84]

How is public beta going?

[1713490508]

1713490508

[1713490508]

1713490508

[1713490508]

1713490508

[Vorksholk]

How is public beta going?

Of 2.0? 2.0.0a1 went pretty well, got some good debugging stats. Hope to have another alpha test (2.0.0a2) out in a few weeks to address some problems we experienced on the network, and to add some more features.

Not many people tried out 2.0.0a1, but we still got good information from it.

[merc84]

How is public beta going?

Of 2.0? 2.0.0a1 went pretty well, got some good debugging stats. Hope to have another alpha test (2.0.0a2) out in a few weeks to address some problems we experienced on the network, and to add some more features.

Not many people tried out 2.0.0a1, but we still got good information from it.

I'll make sure to join in 2.0.0a2 test

[ChristianVirtual]

Please give formatting to the numbers ... Difficult to read without ' , ideally based on user defaults.

[Vorksholk]

Please give formatting to the numbers ... Difficult to read without ' , ideally based on user defaults.

The numbers on the new pool frontend?

[defaced]

Where can I get a copy of the folding pool source? I'd like to get Franko folders back up and running.. i'm not sure why the pool source hasnt been made opensource yet.

[d0om]

Woot, made it into the top 1,000 

You know there exist articles and posts on social media by researchers who talk about distributed computing helping their work. Why not link to those in OP? People like links.

[shaka256]

I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read  ) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).

I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).

Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.

The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.

But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.

And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?

[SalimNagamato]

I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read  ) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).

I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).

Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.

The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.

But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.

And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?

I think you look wrong at this...
when more people join the folding, each folder get less CURE, but each coin can have more value. because it was more difficulty to obtain.
(just like in Bitcoin and other POW coins)

with what you suggest, a folder can get constant amount of CURE, but the more people join, the coin can have less value.

this is not a Company, but a POW 'contest'

[Vorksholk]

Where can I get a copy of the folding pool source? I'd like to get Franko folders back up and running.. i'm not sure why the pool source hasnt been made opensource yet.

There's nothing particularly interesting in the folding pool source code--it takes stats from Stanford, puts them in a database, and then calls them out, totals the day total, finds a percent, sends payments.

That being said, I'll open-source the new pool we're releasing in a few days, so anyone else can also pay folders

[Vorksholk]

I don't know whether this topic has already been dicussed before (and 150 pages is too much to read  ) but I'd like to suggest a payment model change for CURECOIN 2.0 (and why not FLDC).

I think that the idea to share 7488 CURE per day between the folders is not going towards the general interest of the folding and there should instead be an amout of CURE that should be payed per number of points generated (eg 10kPoints = 1CURE).

Today it's like if you were in a company and for the same job you do you get payed less and less the more people the company hires.

The concept of sharing the 50 bitcoins per block makes sense for Bitcoin because as long as nobody has 51% of the hashing power, that you have 1GH/s or 1TH/s it's exactly the same as hashes don't have other purpose than securing the blockchain.

But for CURE/FLDC the more people fold the more science is done so it's interesting to stay attractive to new folders forever and have them accept to invest kWh in folding. In my opinion payment should therefore be only relative to the work done and not to which percent of the total daily work you did.

And conversion from CURE to CURE 2.0 should be done based on the number of points earned so far. Today we live in a world where 1% of people have 50% of the global wealth. Why not seize the opportunity of cryptocurrencies to build model based on merit?

Unfortunately the value of a cryptocurrency (or anything else, for that matter) is based on some form of scarcity. If coins were tied to a particular amount of computational power (say, each Curecoin represented 1GFlop running for one day), then the currency would only lose value over time, and thus become unattractive to investors, meaning there would be no incentive for people to buy the currency as basic laws of economics would dictate that the USD$ value of each coin was only to go down.

As computing power gets cheaper, Folding@Home points are easier to generate--a GPU from 2009 generated only, say, 8000 points per day in 2009, when it was top-of-the-line. And today, it still only generates about 8000 points per day. Nowadays, a high-end GPU can generate upwards of 400,000 points per day, even over 600,000 points per day in certain conditions. As such, if each point was a coin, then a coin awarded today would be guaranteed to cost many times more than an equal-by-fungibility coin awarded in 2020, when GPUs are significantly faster still.

The goal of your idea is exactly what we're trying to achieve: offer incentives for more and more people to do more and more folding. However, for Curecoin to be able to achieve such a goal, it has to contain value, without stacking cards against its potential monetary value. It's one of those necessary-evil things, if Curecoins were worthless, they wouldn't offer incentives for people to fold. It'd be like giving out gold stars.

[merc84]

What happens to the coins for sha-256 mining after CC2.0 launches will they become part of the pool for folding payouts?

[defaced]

Where can I get a copy of the folding pool source? I'd like to get Franko folders back up and running.. i'm not sure why the pool source hasnt been made opensource yet.

There's nothing particularly interesting in the folding pool source code--it takes stats from Stanford, puts them in a database, and then calls them out, totals the day total, finds a percent, sends payments.

That being said, I'll open-source the new pool we're releasing in a few days, so anyone else can also pay folders

yea iknow it would just save us time from reinventing the wheel

[Vorksholk]

What happens to the coins for sha-256 mining after CC2.0 launches will they become part of the pool for folding payouts?

There's a few possible directions--since things like the price and people's beliefs about future market performance are based largely on the mintage rate, it isn't something we want to mess with too much. On the surface, there are three major options:

Roll the SHA-256 allocation of coin mintage into folding rewards (best choice)
This would allow 9,360 coins to be paid out per day to people doing folding and other similar computational science computations in the future. This seems like the best way to express Curecoin's priority of research and encourage additional resources to be pointed at scientific computing networks.

Roll the SHA-256 allocation of coin mintage into PoS rewards
This would encourage people to hold the coin, and would (theoretically) lower sell pressure, at least in a short-term frame. However, adding a set-number of coins to a PoS scheme would require a decaying curve of some form to reduce PoS percentage-based rewards over time to keep the awarded amount per day at a given level, and even that requires (fairly impossible) accurate prediction of the percentage of the network that will be staking coins at all points through the coin's lifespan. Assuming the technical difficulties of implementing this could be overcome, it's basically trickle-down economics, hoping that rewarding those holding the coin will increase the value of the coin by increasing buy pressure and decreasing sell pressure will eventually benefit those actually serving Curecoin's purpose of scientific research.

Eliminate the SHA-256 allocation of coin mintage
Cut the ~1872 coins/day rewarded to SHA256 miners out of the equation, reducing the daily coin mintage, and rewarding early purchasers of Curecoin by increasing their proportional holdings of the network over time.

To summarize internal discussions, option 1 is a pretty clear winner. It keeps the mintage schedule on-par with what anyone financially invested into the coin expects, and rewards folding users directly. The SHA256 coins were originally there simply to encourage network security, and won't be a requirement in 2.0.

Option #2 (rolling into PoS) is not only difficult to do reliably, and has less of an effect on the overall returns from folding which a direct reward system (#1) offers.

Option #3 steers Curecoin away from the expected mintage schedule.

We're of course open to discussion on the above--perhaps someone has insight on something we missed or underestimated. In 2.0, we'll likely reduce the PoS rewards, as the current PoS reward percentage isn't realistic for a long-term coin to sustain, and will cause the network to become unbalanced in the future towards stake-holders. Additionally, since much less of 2.0's security relies on PoS, the reward to users for keeping coins online and active should be lowered accordingly. As it stands, Curecoin allows approximately 1% interest per month on coins (See https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cure/tx.dws?5844462cf21932952abd050a97ea731e295e1ad05eab8c0e0a5fb047cdcacfb7.htm, which is a PoS block minted a tad after the 30-day mark, and shows a bit above 1% interest), making Curecoin effectively around 12.6825% per year. It would take around 5 years and 10 months to double a 24/7-staked Curecoin wallet. In the real world, a guaranteed return of 12.6825%/year is unheard of. This causes people to play "hot potato" with the coins if it isn't staking, as the per-coin value would cut in half every 5 years and 10 months, all other constants in a perfectly-reactive 24/7 staking currency held the same. It served us well until now, and will continue to serve us in the coming months, but as a long-term solution it is impractical for any store of value, and would make nearly any kind of investment OF Curecoin into nearly any venture pointless, as the venture would be spending Curecoin and thus not receiving PoS returns, and would have to generate 12.6825% organically.

Doesn't work.

[runpaint]

Well, you already have a working POS system running.

So if you could raise the stake rewards but have the larger portion of all minted coins sent to a folding rewards allocation address, it might not be that hard to implement and would end up pretty much the same as the way the coins are already being allocated.  All the mining would be done by stakers, and then you'd still have a percentage of coins set aside for folders. 

For example, PayCon has a flat 30 coin POS reward, just like a POW block reward.  The difficulty adjusts based on network stake weight, and the daily mintage is still controllable within certain parameters..

[merc84]

For me option 1 is the clear choice why over complicate things just give the folders extra reward it is after all what this project is about right.

[merc84]

Took a short break from folding to mine some other coins, now when i try start folding again i get the following problems. Seems like immediately after downloading a new wu before any folding starts it tries to send the wu as if its already completed. I tried uninstalling f@h and removing all data but the issue persists. After a few mins F@h shows all slots as failed. I searched the f@h forums but didn't find any useful information the cards are not damaged as they work fine for other mining.

01:34:46:WARNING:WU04:FS02:FahCore returned: BAD_WORK_UNIT (114 = 0x72)
01:34:47:WU02:FS03:0x17:ERROR:Win32: 0xc0000005: Exception access violation
01:34:48:WARNING:WU02:FS03:FahCore returned: BAD_WORK_UNIT (114 = 0x72)
01:34:51:WU01:FS04:0x17:ERROR:Win32: 0xc0000005: Exception access violation
01:34:51:WARNING:WU01:FS04:FahCore returned: BAD_WORK_UNIT (114 = 0x72)

Edit: Even though i hadn't changed drivers since folding last, Re-installing drivers and then f@h fixed issue.

[merc84]

Everything has gone very silent for the past few weeks any news on progress towards next test release for CC2.0?

[CryptoCanary]

Hi CureCoin community,

I wrote an article about folding@home for NewsBTC USA. I hope the article helps gain some folders and thought I would share it here.

http://us.newsbtc.com/foldinghome-foldingcoin-mining-for-medical-cures-part-1/

[ryohazuki89]

I'm still a little confused on how 2.0 plans on being decentralized. Is the idea that universities themselves will be holding the curecoin 2.0 that will be distributed to folders?