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

[merc84]

Otherwise the only real buy pressure comes from speculators or those inclined to purchase on a philanthropic basis to encourage more contribution to Folding@Home.

Looking at the historical price of this coin, it's relatively stable.  There is no new and significant functionality or utility to look forward to in the future so buying on speculation of a price rise doesn't make sense.  "Miners" (folders?) must be constantly dumping to pay the bills so the price should be on a steady decline, but it isn't.  Is philanthropy really the explanation for this?

I think you kind of answer your own question here, if folders were constantly dumping then price would be in steady decline. However it seems most folders are involved philanthropically and simply hold their coins. However I would consider some of the features slated for the cc2.0 as significant in terms of functionality, if you consider what is the function of curecoin? Its function at least in part is to replace wasteful POW mining with DCN research in the most decentralized manner possible, in terms of this there certainly are significant features coming.

[1714823988]

1714823988

[1714823988]

1714823988

[1714823988]

1714823988

[1714823988]

1714823988

[BTCTT]

where are we on CC 2.0? Is this update ever coming out?

[cryptohunter]

where are we on CC 2.0? Is this update ever coming out?

This project is a wasted opportunity. The only real use for POW mining and this coin is nowhere.

That is a joke.

You'd be better starting another coin same principle with a team of devs behind it not just a couple of people that probably work on it a couple of hours every 2 weeks in spare time.

[huffnpuff]

where are we on CC 2.0? Is this update ever coming out?

This project is a wasted opportunity. The only real use for POW mining and this coin is nowhere.

That is a joke.

You'd be better starting another coin same principle with a team of devs behind it not just a couple of people that probably work on it a couple of hours every 2 weeks in spare time.

Keep in mind during CureCoin's initial seed funding (late 2013/early 2014), bitcoin peaked at $1150 USD. Then, over the course of a year, bitcoin's valuation tumbled to below $180 USD.

That's an over 80% drop in the value of the initially investment funds in CureCoin. At the time, there was an outcry over the 10% dev fund required to make the coin viable (over which you were a vocal opponent I believe). Based on community complaints, the dev funds were reduced to 3% which were still disputed as "profiting from charity" by some at the time.

So that's part of the reason why things move more like molasses right now. You can't hire additional developers away from paying projects until CURE is valued at least at a minimum break-even point for folding. That would add honest market liquidity.

As a side-note, Ethereum missed several release dates on it's way to Frontier (despite being funded - now with over $18,000,000 USD). And even today, exhibits occasional mining instability and user friendliness issues.

There should be some movement regarding your concerns over the next month. I’m confident Vorksholk will be able to share an update soon.

[SalimNagamato]

folding and folding and folding
can't mine anything with GPUs without feeling remorse and going back to folding almost instantly 

[assistresearch]

folding and folding and folding
can't mine anything with GPUs without feeling remorse and going back to folding almost instantly 

Certainly folding has been the end of many video game addictions ... the guilt alone (whether justified or not) takes care of those cravings.

[assistresearch]

folding and folding and folding
can't mine anything with GPUs without feeling remorse and going back to folding almost instantly 

Although if one can be profitable at mining something like ETH right now, you can put some earnings towards buy support for science coins.

[BTCTT]

where are we on CC 2.0? Is this update ever coming out?

This project is a wasted opportunity. The only real use for POW mining and this coin is nowhere.

That is a joke.

You'd be better starting another coin same principle with a team of devs behind it not just a couple of people that probably work on it a couple of hours every 2 weeks in spare time.

Keep in mind during CureCoin's initial seed funding (late 2013/early 2014), bitcoin peaked at $1150 USD. Then, over the course of a year, bitcoin's valuation tumbled to below $180 USD.

That's an over 80% drop in the value of the initially investment funds in CureCoin. At the time, there was an outcry over the 10% dev fund required to make the coin viable (over which you were a vocal opponent I believe). Based on community complaints, the dev funds were reduced to 3% which were still disputed as "profiting from charity" by some at the time.

So that's part of the reason why things move more like molasses right now. You can't hire additional developers away from paying projects until CURE is valued at least at a minimum break-even point for folding. That would add honest market liquidity.

As a side-note, Ethereum missed several release dates on it's way to Frontier (despite being funded - now with over $18,000,000 USD). And even today, exhibits occasional mining instability and user friendliness issues.

There should be some movement regarding your concerns over the next month. I’m confident Vorksholk will be able to share an update soon.

Curecoin 2.0 was suppose to come out 2 years ago... It's getting ridiculous! 6 months delay is acceptable 2 years delay is ridiculous... 2.0.0a9 is now 3 months behind schedule AGAIN!!! No one will invest or support a dev/coin like that.

Sad because i think it's a great idea. unfortunately the people behind it don't seems to give a Sh**! So much can be done to bring attention to this coin but the people in charge are doing next to nothing...

There is 2BTC buy support on Polo... That's 800usd! the mkt cap is around 60k usd... Meaning no one give a sh**! What a Joke...

The only reason it went up recently it's because I supported the price! otherwise it would still be trading at 1700 with a mkt cap of 30k

1. idea: 10/10
2. dev: 2/10
3. marketing: 1/10

The dev need to get their sh** together. If people believed in this project and the dev. Lots of talented people would work on it for free and they would be no need to hire anyone.

Another few months and this coin will be dead...

[cryptohunter]

what they are trying to achieve is probably rather tricky but really I doubt they take the project seriously.

shame because the idea was the best use of gpu power yet for pow.

If they want out I wonder what we could do with all the premine thats going to be used to pay the folders and how we could get new devs to set up the decentralised payment system.

I just think they tried but it's a very tricky thing to do.

They should use the dev fund to get someone in like tptb need war. He may be sympathetic to this coin since it does do some good. He could advise or help. Of course we would probably need to get a large pot of cure together for him. I don't know if he would help or not since i know he is busy with his own project.

If not some real full time smart devs need to be brought in to get this project off its knees.

I too have poured BTC into this over the years so feel your pain of trying to support the price.

I loved the idea but obviously the way the payouts worked with folders was not very advanced

that's not to say the dev team have not put effort in...they have but i think the next steps they are trying to take are probably steps too far for them.

I dont really know ....but the time this has taken is either due to them not knowing what to do, waiting on others to get back to them and work in with them or just not being that bothered about it.

a combo of all three i would guess.

[huffnpuff]

Lets go through some of these - I'll let the devs respond separately in their time

The only reason it went up recently it's because I supported the price! otherwise it would still be trading at 1700 with a mkt cap of 30k

First thanks for adding buy support, it would be great if other's would do the same as many of the coins adding liquidity are sourced from PS3EdOlkkola's donations - which ultimately go to support some great causes listed on the homepage.

3. marketing: 1/10

Rather than criticism, based on limited budgets, we'd love to hear some suggestions on marketing from team experts on the subject.

I can tell you we've made contacts with a LOT of people on social media ... from 13 year old gamers, to college kids, physicians, Hollywood agencies ... all the way up to billion dollar philanthropic organizations and  VPs of fortune 500 companies. Search twitter, facebook and curecoin and you'll get nearly 250,000 hits. We interact multiple times per day across several social media platforms. We've sent emails, certified letters, packages and called decision makers in person. There are several educational, informational and entertaining videos published on Youtube about CureCoin (published both by the team or folding team members)

The concept isn't exactly easy to get across. You get a spectrum of responses ... from enthusiasm, to indifference, to optimism for the folding research (but ignorance about the purpose of the currency), to outright anger - spouting conspiracy theories about big pharma or "profiting from charitable giving".

We've found Hollywood people don't want anything on their computer equipment for fear of being hacked, while otherwise educated people don't want to load the folding client on their computers because they're afraid it will "burn it up".

We recently tried to convince the head of a cancer foundation who hadn't heard of FAH, but who works with Fortune 500 companies, to load an NaCl work unit in their chrome browser ... after several tries and reminders, they came back saying they were "just too busy at the moment".

I talked to a couple of marketing "experts" ... one is dismissive of the idea (not exactly a visionary), while the other who works with an major technology marketing company in NYC really liked the idea, but mentioned that for mass marketing the folding and wallet clients would need to be distributed in a single package. Re-distribution is something Pande Group does not allow for their folding client.

But complexity isn't what's stopping people in the crypto-community from folding :-) I'm somewhat convinced, due to incorrect, outdated, strategically misinformed posts still floating around on the web from 2013/14, the broader crypto-currency community makes assumptions about CureCoin's efficiency and rewards model that just aren't true (don't know how many times I've corrected people about our 19% SHA mining awards, who assumed it was 100%).

One of the near-term goals of CureCoin is to fund a 501c3 registration. This will hopefully open some doors in high places that were previously closed, but that in no way implies CureCoin simply wants charity status. The current trend is towards hybrid corporations. This involves processing CURE donations on behalf of charities while managing cloud folding services, developing new products and technologies around CURE once it can stand on it's own in the future.

The dev need to get their sh** together. If people believed in this project and the dev. Lots of talented people would work on it for free and they would be no need to hire anyone.

Again, I don't want to respond on their behalf ... but I know they are busy refactoring some aspects of CC 2.0 code while working on a CC 1.x maintenance upgrade. That being said, the few times I've dealt with outside individuals interested in working for the project, the conversation fizzles when they find there is little in the way of $$$$ or BTC to present them for their hard work. For some aforementioned reasons, people just aren't that excited about accelerating research (yet).

If you know individuals with a crytpo-currency development background who are willing to "Work for CURE" on a limited basis, by all means have them contact Cyg or Vork any time.

[bitcoinrocks]

I think we're overlooking that which has made other mining networks successful.  BTC was first and so is popular as a store and transfer of value, ETH has smart contract functionality.  This creates demand for these coins (speculative or otherwise) which increases the price which incentivizes miners to support the network.

If we want more miners/folders then our coin must have a strong value proposition.  Currently it has none besides philanthropy and we are experiencing exactly how much that is worth in the marketplace.

[brownmon]

Almost every FLOSS software project in the world is underfunded.

Wikipedia (not quite FLOSS but similar) have to mislead users to get the amount of donations they get.

I recommend the devs hardfork to increase the development fund, be this by simply awarding themselves coins, or by increasing the % of new coins they get.

[merc84]

Almost every FLOSS software project in the world is underfunded.

Wikipedia (not quite FLOSS but similar) have to mislead users to get the amount of donations they get.

I recommend the devs hardfork to increase the development fund, be this by simply awarding themselves coins, or by increasing the % of new coins they get.

I don't believe a hardfork is the answer at least in the short term, cc2.0 will need a hardfork and it makes little sense to do so twice. I would however support increasing the dev fund when cc2.0 launches. Perhaps a much more simple way for the time being is for folders to increase their donation percentage on the cryptobullions folding pool. I can't help but think even if the devs get 10% though its still peanuts with the current price. And perhaps herein lies the true problem, the only ones profiting from this research is big pharma not exactly a shining example of philanthropy. Perhaps the only way a coin like this can be successful is to cut out the middleman (stanford) and crunch data directly for big companies who can profit, they could "pay" for this by exerting buy pressure on the market, just how much they pay would come down too their own requirements and the value of data processing to them.

[BTCTT]

Almost every FLOSS software project in the world is underfunded.

Wikipedia (not quite FLOSS but similar) have to mislead users to get the amount of donations they get.

I recommend the devs hardfork to increase the development fund, be this by simply awarding themselves coins, or by increasing the % of new coins they get.

I don't believe a hardfork is the answer at least in the short term, cc2.0 will need a hardfork and it makes little sense to do so twice. I would however support increasing the dev fund when cc2.0 launches. Perhaps a much more simple way for the time being is for folders to increase their donation percentage on the cryptobullions folding pool. I can't help but think even if the devs get 10% though its still peanuts with the current price. And perhaps herein lies the true problem, the only ones profiting from this research is big pharma not exactly a shining example of philanthropy. Perhaps the only way a coin like this can be successful is to cut out the middleman (stanford) and crunch data directly for big companies who can profit, they could "pay" for this by exerting buy pressure on the market, just how much they pay would come down too their own requirements and the value of data processing to them.

The Dev is raising money for Stanford's Pande Labs. I think for now it should be used to advance and increase Curecoin not give money to Stanford's Pande Labs. "CureCoin converted an additional 280,000 CURE donations into over $2200 USD. CureCoin's Latest Donations to Folding at Home (Pande Labs)" curecoin.net

I'm all for charity but the dev should raise money to improve the coin, once the coin is successful I'm 100% sure hundreds of thousands of dollars will be raised for charity. I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse...  

[huffnpuff]

Almost every FLOSS software project in the world is underfunded.

Wikipedia (not quite FLOSS but similar) have to mislead users to get the amount of donations they get.

I recommend the devs hardfork to increase the development fund, be this by simply awarding themselves coins, or by increasing the % of new coins they get.

I don't believe a hardfork is the answer at least in the short term, cc2.0 will need a hardfork and it makes little sense to do so twice. I would however support increasing the dev fund when cc2.0 launches. Perhaps a much more simple way for the time being is for folders to increase their donation percentage on the cryptobullions folding pool. I can't help but think even if the devs get 10% though its still peanuts with the current price. And perhaps herein lies the true problem, the only ones profiting from this research is big pharma not exactly a shining example of philanthropy. Perhaps the only way a coin like this can be successful is to cut out the middleman (stanford) and crunch data directly for big companies who can profit, they could "pay" for this by exerting buy pressure on the market, just how much they pay would come down too their own requirements and the value of data processing to them.

The Dev is raising money for Stanford's Pande Labs. I think for now it should be used to advance and increase Curecoin not give money to Stanford's Pande Labs. "CureCoin converted an additional 280,000 CURE donations into over $2200 USD. CureCoin's Latest Donations to Folding at Home (Pande Labs)" curecoin.net

I'm all for charity but the dev should raise money to improve the coin, once the coin is successful I'm 100% sure hundreds of thousands of dollars will be raised for charity. I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse...  

This balance of donations will change in the future :-)

We made a commitment to donate the funds from the Endometriosis Pilot Study proposal to FAH if it didn't reach critical mass. We had an initial indication from (what will remain an un-named source at Stanford) that, with the right funding, it would be possible. An Indiegogo draft was written (to which we would add the donated CureCoins regardless of market value if we could get an official nod), however then we got radio silence, while the charity and physicians we were talking to, told us they were committed to supporting UCSF research instead. You can read all about it on the forum and reddit if you have an extra hour. So we were committed to do what we promised with that donation, which was to donate them to fund Stanford servers. This was truly a one-off opportunity that we couldn't pass up, if not a bit disappointing in the end.

And perhaps herein lies the true problem, the only ones profiting from this research is big pharma not exactly a shining example of philanthropy.

On the "helping Big Pharma" question, all the results from FAH are made public, and any patents that Stanford may file as a result must to be sold to the highest bidder. So the ultimate winners are still the public who benefit from any resulting drug compounds (unless said Big Pharama entity decides to manipulate the resulting patent somehow downstream - that's an entirely separate discussion). In the meantime, Stanford can use those funds to enhance their research and create new projects for FAH to crunch.

[SalimNagamato]

Cause Coins on TheDailyDecrypt.com video link: https://youtu.be/IwK6cAKenXc

[Vorksholk]

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.

[merc84]

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?

[Vorksholk]

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.

[Vorksholk]

Cause Coins on TheDailyDecrypt.com video link: https://youtu.be/IwK6cAKenXc

Thanks! Just for clarification to anyone who watches that video, the PoS isn't related to folding, but rather is part of the PoW component.