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

[LasersHurt]

(And stop telling others to cheat, dude. What do you think this is?)

I started talking about cheating when I saw it. You basicly told me that you're fine with it, so I don't see what's your point.

You BELIEVED there was cheating, and you responded BY cheating.

If the rest of the community agrees with you, I'm sure we could try to create a new poll that requires registration. Of course, since someone could make fraudulent registrations, one would assume that THAT wouldn't count either.

If you have a specific type of security for a poll in mind, please do share. Perhaps the community will agree that we should start over.

If you have similar childish security measures within the rest of your team/development, it'd make me cry.

I feel the need to remind you that I am the webmaster of CureCoin.net, not a developer of CureCoin. The coin's security is not in my hands, nor should it be. I'm just hosting the poll for a community's Logo design contest, something created, implemented, and funded by the community. It's great that you had feedback on the poll; less great that you assumed there was cheating, so instead cheated yourself to "make a point" before I had ever seen the first message. If you have constructive advice on the poll, we're all ears.

[1714028469]

1714028469

[1714028469]

1714028469

[primeGPU]

You BELIEVED there was cheating, and you responded BY cheating.

I would have cheated if I silently voted a lot of times for the entry that I liked most.
I did the opposite of that.

If the rest of the community agrees with you, I'm sure we could try to create a new poll that requires registration. Of course, since someone could make fraudulent registrations, one would assume that THAT wouldn't count either.

If you have a specific type of security for a poll in mind, please do share. Perhaps the community will agree that we should start over.
...
If you have constructive advice on the poll, we're all ears.

I already wrote about such type of security a couple of pages above.
Just use this thread for voting, limit to ones registered before yesterday.

[spiffcow]

Well nice job crashing the coin people.  It's a real shame, i liked the idea of both making money and helping cancer research

[cameronpalte]

Well nice job crashing the coin people.  It's a real shame, i liked the idea of both making money and helping cancer research

Why are you blaming us for crashing the con - we are working on getting back up - we don't just magically control the value of the coins.

[saberu]

This coin made me rich.














I thought Curecoin would be huge so I got together around $4k and bought as many Curecoins as I could while the price was still 130K satoshis. I sold all my Curecoins for a slightly lower price making a slight loss and invested as much as I could into XC before it took off. I have made 10x on my investment and XC is looking to reach the Darkcoin high of 2.7 million satoshis within a few months.

This would never have happened if I didnt start buying Curecoin on Poloniex.

Commiserations to all those who were left holding the bag with Curecoin or mining it, seems like there is not much market support for this coin until the developers can tell us if they are selling the Curecoin hashing power out to the highest bidder or planning to share the profit with miners and holders via PoW/PoS type bonuses.

I feel like the developers maybe got too greedy due to getting a `large investor` and are too busy looking at how they can profit from their coin rather than their users.

Remember it`s a coin`s community that determine whether it fails or does well. I hope my post is not censored, I am not spreading fud this is my own reasoned opinion. I sold out of Curecoin to buy XC because I saw that is where investors and most miners think the real value is in Crypto. I can see how anonymous coins can be valuable since tax evasion is measured in billions in every major country in the world and practiced by most rich corporations and individuals. We are talking $100s billions in tax evasion per year around the world, then another $100 billion in illegal trade (think weapons and drugs) that will also be using anonymous XC transactions.

I do not agree with tax evasion or illegal activities. But its just a fact that these two things will make XC go to the moon, yet Curecoin doesnt seem to have any plans regarding giving this protein folding reward to the users themselves.

In theory medical research is a billions of dollars industry and if Curecoin was doing what it should be then the devs would be looking to get medical companies to work out a payment system to pay for this folding power asap. But it seems they arent, at least not for miners or coin holders. A lot of people put their money or heart into this coin because they knew it had a practical market and application but the devs dont seem to care anymore.

[Burninj]

This coin made me rich.














I thought Curecoin would be huge so I got together around $4k and bought as many Curecoins as I could while the price was still 130K satoshis. I sold all my Curecoins for a slightly lower price making a slight loss and invested as much as I could into XC before it took off. I have made 10x on my investment and XC is looking to reach the Darkcoin high of 2.7 million satoshis within a few months.

This would never have happened if I didnt start buying Curecoin on Poloniex.

Commiserations to all those who were left holding the bag with Curecoin or mining it, seems like there is not much market support for this coin until the developers can tell us if they are selling the Curecoin hashing power out to the highest bidder or planning to share the profit with miners and holders via PoW/PoS type bonuses.

I feel like the developers maybe got too greedy due to getting a `large investor` and are too busy looking at how they can profit from their coin rather than their users.

Remember it`s a coin`s community that determine whether it fails or does well. I hope my post is not censored, I am not spreading fud this is my own reasoned opinion. I sold out of Curecoin to buy XC because I saw that is where investors and most miners think the real value is in Crypto. I can see how anonymous coins can be valuable since tax evasion is measured in billions in every major country in the world and practiced by most rich corporations and individuals. We are talking $100s billions in tax evasion per year around the world, then another $100 billion in illegal trade (think weapons and drugs) that will also be using anonymous XC transactions.

I do not agree with tax evasion or illegal activities. But its just a fact that these two things will make XC go to the moon, yet Curecoin doesnt seem to have any plans regarding giving this protein folding reward to the users themselves.

In theory medical research is a billions of dollars industry and if Curecoin was doing what it should be then the devs would be looking to get medical companies to work out a payment system to pay for this folding power asap. But it seems they arent, at least not for miners or coin holders. A lot of people put their money or heart into this coin because they knew it had a practical market and application but the devs dont seem to care anymore.

Yeah sure, after 7 months of dev...

[cameronpalte]

This coin made me rich.

I thought Curecoin would be huge so I got together around $4k and bought as many Curecoins as I could while the price was still 130K satoshis. I sold all my Curecoins for a slightly lower price making a slight loss and invested as much as I could into XC before it took off. I have made 10x on my investment and XC is looking to reach the Darkcoin high of 2.7 million satoshis within a few months.

This would never have happened if I didnt start buying Curecoin on Poloniex.

Commiserations to all those who were left holding the bag with Curecoin or mining it, seems like there is not much market support for this coin until the developers can tell us if they are selling the Curecoin hashing power out to the highest bidder or planning to share the profit with miners and holders via PoW/PoS type bonuses.

I feel like the developers maybe got too greedy due to getting a `large investor` and are too busy looking at how they can profit from their coin rather than their users.

Remember it`s a coin`s community that determine whether it fails or does well. I hope my post is not censored, I am not spreading fud this is my own reasoned opinion. I sold out of Curecoin to buy XC because I saw that is where investors and most miners think the real value is in Crypto. I can see how anonymous coins can be valuable since tax evasion is measured in billions in every major country in the world and practiced by most rich corporations and individuals. We are talking $100s billions in tax evasion per year around the world, then another $100 billion in illegal trade (think weapons and drugs) that will also be using anonymous XC transactions.

I do not agree with tax evasion or illegal activities. But its just a fact that these two things will make XC go to the moon, yet Curecoin doesnt seem to have any plans regarding giving this protein folding reward to the users themselves.

In theory medical research is a billions of dollars industry and if Curecoin was doing what it should be then the devs would be looking to get medical companies to work out a payment system to pay for this folding power asap. But it seems they arent, at least not for miners or coin holders. A lot of people put their money or heart into this coin because they knew it had a practical market and application but the devs dont seem to care anymore.

Yeah sure, after 7 months of dev...

Except the government figure out that's what people do with XC and they ban it - Bitcoin is running into trouble because of its illegal side and this is a coin that makes it easier for people to do that illegal thing. So then governments ban it and it goes to 0 very very fast.

[ivanlabrie]

I'm all for Curecoin, but the implementation IS flawed...devs seem awfully silent and that is not good in the eyes of the public.

There's too much inflation and too little uses for the Curecoins right now, sha256 miners will flock to btc again and the coin won't be secure with PoS alone. Something must be done asap... 

[thaitunhi1606]

Down and down. 
Plz vote now...
https://www.mintpal.com/voting

[kqpahv]

I've done a fair amount of thinking about Curecoin to this point and I think the price drop, frankly, is justified. Here are my thoughts and recommendations. The Curecoin team can do as they please. I am not planning on selling any of my coins in the near term but as a large stakeholder, I hope that the community gives this some thought.

• New projects are fundamentally about people. And we know nothing about the Curecoin team. While it's true that the lead dev, Cygnus has outed his real name and Google+ account, that is, for all practical purposes meaningless. The dev page should be updated to reflect resume details about the developers: their skills, and past projects.
• To date, the developers have done a poor job of communicating with the community. I applaud "lasershunt" for taking on much of this burden, but the devs should be in the forums a minimum of 1-2 hours/day. There are many good & concerning questions from interested parties here, on Reddit & Overclockers, but none are being addressed by offical reps. That is a huge miss.
• The team needs to surrounds themselves with professional advisors/business development folks who are connected in the industry, can assist in speaking gigs at conferences, and manage PR. These people need to be official on the website to inspire confidence in the press, miners and investors.
• The big incongruity is that there is an imbalance in the professional aims of the project and the seemingly amateur voices supporting it. Long-term this project will not succeed without the support (and potential integration) of Stanford University/Pande Labs and the team has not inspired the market with confidence that such partnerships are on the horizon (not to mention the comments from Pande Labs that the developers ignored their concerns). Many of the forum voices are well meaning but ultimately misguided. Spending $2,000 on a booth at a conference is probably not the best use of money. Right now the only investments should be made in recruiting phenomenal people to work on the project, and building stronger ties with Pande Labs. I can promise you that if you're able to steal 2-3 devs from Mastercoin, NXT, even coins like XC or whatnot, or find equivalent talent willing to work on Curecoin (and prove their skills) the market will respond very positively.
• The reason why this matters is that the structure of the coin requires a lot of community trust. There is a reasonable pre-mine (5% including dev & IPO) as well as a centralized distribution plan. Curecoin is a potentially game changing idea - connecting economic benefit to social purpose. But as folding is not encoded into the blockchain, and is not decentralized, much of the market will lose interest. Those who are interested will demand legitimacy and credibility which is what I'm advocating for in this post.
  

Overall, it's still early, about 2 weeks since release. I do think there are some significant issues, but a lot of upside as well if the team is willing to adapt quickly, accept help from highly qualified people, and re-focus 100% on moving faster than other coin on the market.

Have to agree here. For a 80%+ premined coin the effort put into credibility is just ridiculous. The developer fund was supposed to be used for keeping at least Cygnus him self working with the coin as a full time job but yet after 20 days of the launch I cant see not much being done. No ledger, no developer information (a post in the middle of a long thread kinda doesnt do it), no Mac wallet, no replies to direct questions in the thread, zero marketing etc. Hey, maybe they are currently working on something big and I am unjust here but this is what it looks at the outside to investors and miners (hold vs dump).
The idea was good but so far the execution is less than perfect Last straw was that the team and F@H guys dont even get along so the Lead dev goes and bashes the coin on reddit making the price fall 4x   Nice, very proffesional from both sides. Though I admit I agree with jcoffland on a lot of points I dont know what he hoped to achieve there -  his comments directly moved/ will move double digit % of power away from F@H  

I hold a heap of Curecoins that I earned with folding and hope things will start to move along as this not the first time I am keeping my eye on a coin where Dev inactivity is a big concern and the result has always been the same.... Once the window of opportunity closes and the initial inertia of a new coin is gone there is usually no coming back.
I really hope they sort their sh*t out with jcoffland/Pande/Standford or who ever and we start seeing a bit more activity from the developers.

[Vorksholk]

I'm all for Curecoin, but the implementation IS flawed...devs seem awfully silent and that is not good in the eyes of the public.

There's too much inflation and too little uses for the Curecoins right now, sha256 miners will flock to btc again and the coin won't be secure with PoS alone. Something must be done asap... 

You guys should check out the IRC channel, there's a lot more activity and day-to-day planning in there. We're working on organizing everything for the Chicago BTC conference, and so are fairly quiet on the forums as we work on figuring out marketing, booth design, demos to show, and getting some other assets organized for the convention.

Hop into IRC (freenode #curecoin) to keep up on the latest development, and to ask us questions and get quick responses

Stanford's also going to be pushing some changes to the stats system when they roll out ocore, so we'll be fairly busy working on making sure that our end is ready when they start to phase it in.

[saberu]

Except the government figure out that's what people do with XC and they ban it - Bitcoin is running into trouble because of its illegal side and this is a coin that makes it easier for people to do that illegal thing. So then governments ban it and it goes to 0 very very fast.

No single government has the power to ban Bitcoin or XC. I think XC traffic is all encrypted anyway so impossible to ban.. and like Bitcoin it is decentralized but even more so than Bitcoin.

[kqpahv]

Except the government figure out that's what people do with XC and they ban it - Bitcoin is running into trouble because of its illegal side and this is a coin that makes it easier for people to do that illegal thing. So then governments ban it and it goes to 0 very very fast.

No single government has the power to ban Bitcoin or XC. I think XC traffic is all encrypted anyway so impossible to ban.. and like Bitcoin it is decentralized but even more so than Bitcoin.

They dont need to ban XC or DRK traffic. All they need to do is ban the exchanges from dealing with it and thats it. Ofcourse there will be still ways do exchange it to BTC but this means none of those "underground" coins will ever go mainstream or very valuable.

[bitpop]

Lol people who think any business would accept dark

[Vorksholk]

I've done a fair amount of thinking about Curecoin to this point and I think the price drop, frankly, is justified. Here are my thoughts and recommendations. The Curecoin team can do as they please. I am not planning on selling any of my coins in the near term but as a large stakeholder, I hope that the community gives this some thought.

• New projects are fundamentally about people. And we know nothing about the Curecoin team. While it's true that the lead dev, Cygnus has outed his real name and Google+ account, that is, for all practical purposes meaningless. The dev page should be updated to reflect resume details about the developers: their skills, and past projects.
• To date, the developers have done a poor job of communicating with the community. I applaud "lasershunt" for taking on much of this burden, but the devs should be in the forums a minimum of 1-2 hours/day. There are many good & concerning questions from interested parties here, on Reddit & Overclockers, but none are being addressed by offical reps. That is a huge miss.
• The team needs to surrounds themselves with professional advisors/business development folks who are connected in the industry, can assist in speaking gigs at conferences, and manage PR. These people need to be official on the website to inspire confidence in the press, miners and investors.
• The big incongruity is that there is an imbalance in the professional aims of the project and the seemingly amateur voices supporting it. Long-term this project will not succeed without the support (and potential integration) of Stanford University/Pande Labs and the team has not inspired the market with confidence that such partnerships are on the horizon (not to mention the comments from Pande Labs that the developers ignored their concerns). Many of the forum voices are well meaning but ultimately misguided. Spending $2,000 on a booth at a conference is probably not the best use of money. Right now the only investments should be made in recruiting phenomenal people to work on the project, and building stronger ties with Pande Labs. I can promise you that if you're able to steal 2-3 devs from Mastercoin, NXT, even coins like XC or whatnot, or find equivalent talent willing to work on Curecoin (and prove their skills) the market will respond very positively.
• The reason why this matters is that the structure of the coin requires a lot of community trust. There is a reasonable pre-mine (5% including dev & IPO) as well as a centralized distribution plan. Curecoin is a potentially game changing idea - connecting economic benefit to social purpose. But as folding is not encoded into the blockchain, and is not decentralized, much of the market will lose interest. Those who are interested will demand legitimacy and credibility which is what I'm advocating for in this post.
  

Overall, it's still early, about 2 weeks since release. I do think there are some significant issues, but a lot of upside as well if the team is willing to adapt quickly, accept help from highly qualified people, and re-focus 100% on moving faster than other coin on the market.

Have to agree here. For a 80%+ premined coin the effort put into credibility is just ridiculous. The developer fund was supposed to be used for keeping at least Cygnus him self working with the coin as a full time job but yet after 20 days of the launch I cant see not much being done. No ledger, no developer information (a post in the middle of a long thread kinda doesnt do it), no Mac wallet, no replies to direct questions in the thread, zero marketing etc. Hey, maybe they are currently working on something big and I am unjust here but this is what it looks at the outside to investors and miners (hold vs dump).
The idea was good but so far the execution is less than perfect Last straw was that the team and F@H guys dont even get along so the Lead dev goes and bashes the coin on reddit making the price fall 4x   Nice, very proffesional from both sides. Though I admit I agree with jcoffland on a lot of points I dont know what he hoped to achieve there -  his comments directly moved/ will move double digit % of power away from F@H  

I hold a heap of Curecoins that I earned with folding and hope things will start to move along as this not the first time I am keeping my eye on a coin where Dev inactivity is a big concern and the result has always been the same.... Once the window of opportunity closes and the initial inertia of a new coin is gone there is usually no coming back.
I really hope they sort their sh*t out with jcoffland/Pande/Standford or who ever and we start seeing a bit more activity from the developers.

We've been fairly quiet on the threads where jcoff talks about Curecoin. To clarify a few points though, he is not the "Lead Dev" of F@H as he claims to be, he developed the NaCL (Chrome folding) client, as well as the current desktop-version client, and likely contributes some other code elsewhere in the system. He brings up a few valid points, namely the centralization of the project. To summarize a longer explanation I went into on IRC, there are essentially four main options for integrating scientific computations into a cryptocurrency:

1.) Follow the path of Primecoin/Riecoin, where you create a proof-of-work which, while having some mathematical interest, doesn't have significant adaptability. From a decentralization standpoint, this option rocks, as it keeps the creation of work decentralized. However, the results of the PoW are not particularly helpful to science, and a new coin (or a fork of the coin) would be required to attempt proofs of another related mathematical theorem, such as the frequency with which primes are created, or the patterns? they will follow.

2.) Create a coin with a proof-of-work system based around the clients themselves collecting stats from the Stanford website, and agreeing on point payouts. This proposition, while on the surface quite decentralized, is also quite susceptible to errors. A change in the formatting of the Stanford stats, a change to the way points are assigned, etc. would cause massive client panic, and the network would be inoperable for days until the majority of users adopted a hot patch created by the developers. Not something that can occur in a legitimate currency, so this idea is, naturally, removed from consideration... Additionally, this idea would not allow easy transitions to include other distributed computing projects, such as Rosetta@Home, SETI@Home, World Community Grid. . .

3.) Create a coin which, with each block, creates a subsidy that is paid out to a pool account. The pool account would collect the subsidies created, and every day the server would look at the available coin balance, and split/payout that proportionally to all users, based on their computational resources contributed. This idea makes the folding server a large target, as the subsidy would be paid out to a hard-coded address, which, if the private key was obtained for it, would compromise the folding component of the currency.

4.) The method we chose involves the folding payout coins to be premined. This has several benefits, which was the reason we chose this path: we have a constant amount of currency, so we can stabilize folding payouts by having the same exact amount paid out (total) per day, reducing the risk of slow blocks impacting folding rewards, the premine can generate PoS to give additional rewards to folders, and those coins act as a major stake in the currency, which allows PoS blocks to be created, further increasing the difficulty of performing some form of 51% attack against the network, and the coins can, similar to the above option, be seen on the blockchain, on the public ledger. Similar to option #3, this approach allows us to add additional distributed computing projects to Curecoin in the future.

Admittedly, like all the above options, option number 4 has some shortcomings. The centralization of payouts worries some people, and the fact that a large number of coins are controlled by one party is also quite concerning to many. We saw this as the best option despite these inherent flaws, and therefore made the coin with that model in mind.

That is not to say that, in the future, the coin could not be adapted to, at some point, migrate all user balances and implement alternate network rules--once the blockchain has a significant and semi-constant hashing power, one option would be to make one such migration, in which a block subsidy is introduced, and all remaining folding premine funds would either not transfer over, or would be destroyed. Another option is to implement some form of network rule for the emission of folding funds in a more predictable manner, however it would still, at some level, be reliant on block speeds. If such a modification was to be introduced to the Curecoin network, it would require quite the organizational feat, and the transition would likely by disruptive for a short period of time.

As to complaints about the speed of payouts occurring, one of the things Josh and I have been working on "behind the scenes" (and in IRC) is tightening the screws of the system, and a few days ago we shaved off nearly 14 hours from the time it takes from the submission of a WU until it is credited in the system on our end.

We've also been extremely busy with figuring out how the BTC:Chicago conference's Curecoin booth will be done, if anyone has any ideas/experience they would like to offer, either post it here, or hop on IRC!

[AtomSea]

The above needs to be placed on the appropriate reddit thread.
The accusations that the alleged "lead-developer" put on there are very inaccurate and damaging to this project.
Purple-monkey-dishwasher.

[kqpahv]

We've been fairly quiet on the threads where jcoff talks about Curecoin. To clarify a few points though, he is not the "Lead Dev" of F@H as he claims to be, he developed the NaCL (Chrome folding) client, as well as the current desktop-version client, and likely contributes some other code elsewhere in the system. He brings up a few valid points, namely the centralization of the project. To summarize a longer explanation I went into on IRC, there are essentially four main options for integrating scientific computations into a cryptocurrency:

1.) Follow the path of Primecoin/Riecoin, where you create a proof-of-work which, while having some mathematical interest, doesn't have significant adaptability. From a decentralization standpoint, this option rocks, as it keeps the creation of work decentralized. However, the results of the PoW are not particularly helpful to science, and a new coin (or a fork of the coin) would be required to attempt proofs of another related mathematical theorem, such as the frequency with which primes are created, or the patterns? they will follow.

2.) Create a coin with a proof-of-work system based around the clients themselves collecting stats from the Stanford website, and agreeing on point payouts. This proposition, while on the surface quite decentralized, is also quite susceptible to errors. A change in the formatting of the Stanford stats, a change to the way points are assigned, etc. would cause massive client panic, and the network would be inoperable for days until the majority of users adopted a hot patch created by the developers. Not something that can occur in a legitimate currency, so this idea is, naturally, removed from consideration... Additionally, this idea would not allow easy transitions to include other distributed computing projects, such as Rosetta@Home, SETI@Home, World Community Grid. . .

3.) Create a coin which, with each block, creates a subsidy that is paid out to a pool account. The pool account would collect the subsidies created, and every day the server would look at the available coin balance, and split/payout that proportionally to all users, based on their computational resources contributed. This idea makes the folding server a large target, as the subsidy would be paid out to a hard-coded address, which, if the private key was obtained for it, would compromise the folding component of the currency.

4.) The method we chose involves the folding payout coins to be premined. This has several benefits, which was the reason we chose this path: we have a constant amount of currency, so we can stabilize folding payouts by having the same exact amount paid out (total) per day, reducing the risk of slow blocks impacting folding rewards, the premine can generate PoS to give additional rewards to folders, and those coins act as a major stake in the currency, which allows PoS blocks to be created, further increasing the difficulty of performing some form of 51% attack against the network, and the coins can, similar to the above option, be seen on the blockchain, on the public ledger. Similar to option #3, this approach allows us to add additional distributed computing projects to Curecoin in the future.

Admittedly, like all the above options, option number 4 has some shortcomings. The centralization of payouts worries some people, and the fact that a large number of coins are controlled by one party is also quite concerning to many. We saw this as the best option despite these inherent flaws, and therefore made the coin with that model in mind.

That is not to say that, in the future, the coin could not be adapted to, at some point, migrate all user balances and implement alternate network rules--once the blockchain has a significant and semi-constant hashing power, one option would be to make one such migration, in which a block subsidy is introduced, and all remaining folding premine funds would either not transfer over, or would be destroyed. Another option is to implement some form of network rule for the emission of folding funds in a more predictable manner, however it would still, at some level, be reliant on block speeds. If such a modification was to be introduced to the Curecoin network, it would require quite the organizational feat, and the transition would likely by disruptive for a short period of time.

As to complaints about the speed of payouts occurring, one of the things Josh and I have been working on "behind the scenes" (and in IRC) is tightening the screws of the system, and a few days ago we shaved off nearly 14 hours from the time it takes from the submission of a WU until it is credited in the system on our end.

We've also been extremely busy with figuring out how the BTC:Chicago conference's Curecoin booth will be done, if anyone has any ideas/experience they would like to offer, either post it here, or hop on IRC!

Thank You for the detailed answer.
Now if you added this information to the OP or Curecoin.net with links to updated information about the developer team and the LCC holding the coins it would already remove so much uncertainty and add credibility to the whole operation.
 
I agree that while the premine option is far from perfect it's hard to think of a better solution for now.
Jcoffland proposed a way where Stanford would issue certificates for WU's which could be used as Proof of Work. Is this something you might look into and try to work with Stanford to maybe get it implemented ? Now that they have seen the potential benefits Curecoin will bring to F@H maybe tehy will be more willing to work more closely with you guys ?

About the conference: Have you guys considered the idea of selling Curecoin gift cards which would be a mean for people to support the F@H cause as more buy support will directly bring more power to the network ? It's something that could only work and be unique for Curecoin and could attract people previously not familiar with cryptocurrencies.

Could be something in the lines of " 100Cur will help solves 10 WU's". I guess technically it would have to be in the form of pre printed paper wallets  where the private key is scratchable like a lottery ticket or smth and the amount of Cures and WU's could be printed on at the point of the sale. You could create a fund where these would be financed from initially and buy back what ever was sold during the day from the markets at every evening. Obviously a public ledger with addresses and balances would have to be kept. Would be great if the gift card could be digital also but I dont have an idea how to deal with the private keys then.

Some sort of effort clearly has to be made to market the coin as these days it's unfortunately not working on the principle "If you build it, they will come".

[thaitunhi1606]

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=&p=1
See... CURE at 19. Àfter 1 month, CURE at TOP 1.

[Sy]

Curecoin is producing ten times more points per day than Rank 1 which in itself is an awesome achievement, people should worry a bit less about their profit, this little project made it possible to help folding AND earn some money, well done!

[LasersHurt]

No ledger, no developer information (a post in the middle of a long thread kinda doesnt do it), no Mac wallet, no replies to direct questions in the thread, zero marketing etc.

The ledger is available on the Website, as is a Mac Wallet. You've already gotten a direct reply, so I'll assume some of your concerns are at least slightly assuaged.