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

[kopija]

So you guys definitely do not know what created September price hike?

We have some thoughts, but nothing is definite. As far as anyone knows, it could be the US government using confiscated bitcoins to help boost participation in DCN research they seed through the NIH and NSF. Pande Lab and Folding@home receive NIH and NSF funding, while BOINC no longer does, but many of its underlying projects do. If you’ve notice, all three science coins (CURE, FLDC and GRC) got a significant boost, so whomever it is, they are NOT playing favorites.

I'm sure every coin has approached people like Mark Cuban and other members of the Shark Tank ... could be one of them. Cuban doesn't believe in bitcoin, but appreciates "the blockchain".

Ummm ... Paul Allen?

It's anyone's guess really :-)

Thanks for thorough reply.
Quite interesting that all three coins surged in same time-frame.
That makes theories about "pump and dump" worthless.
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.

[1713853370]

1713853370

[1713853370]

1713853370

[1713853370]

1713853370

[huffnpuff]

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   ). 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

[QuintLeo]

It also appears that curecoin's morale is higher than anticipated, I was expecting the price to dump much harder given all the new folders coming in..

Most folders are smart. They anticipate that with the future release of CC2.0 which is probably going to be the most secure crypto + the SigmaX bonus, the value of Curecoin might skyrocket, so they keep it.

I know this might not be a speculation spread. And I'm not trying to create FUD. But it appears that I was correct. The new folders want to sell, and there isn't the demand to support them.

The only thing that can raise this price is the CC2 release by the team, or a kamikaze whale (which will only repeat as a vicious cycle until the CC2 release), or some ridiculous slew of merchant acceptance.

 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.

[DevShuster]

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   ). 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.

[Vorksholk]

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   ). 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).

[shaka256]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

.... .. 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  

[shaka256]

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  

It's a matter of days now 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!!

[cygnusxi]

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 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!!

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   "

[Vorksholk]

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.

[ryohazuki89]

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]

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.

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

[Vorksholk]

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.

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

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 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.

[ryohazuki89]

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

[shaka256]

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 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]

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.