natmccoy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
twitter.com/natmcmolecule
|
|
October 01, 2014, 08:33:10 AM |
|
The graph of curecoin value is pretty disheartening. Essentially no upward movement for its entire life....yet I keep buying more and folding because I believe in the cause. Can anyone give some reasons why the downward movement won't continue? Any big plans that will increase the value long-term?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed
timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It
takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but
hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
October 01, 2014, 09:31:10 AM |
|
is the block explorer down? it says "coucou".
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
October 01, 2014, 09:41:58 AM |
|
If someone is interested, I've compiled the headless wallet on arm (for my QNAP nas). If there is interest I can post a compile guide. I can as well make a static version which works on many arm devices including android.
|
|
|
|
ChasingTheDream
|
|
October 02, 2014, 03:51:06 AM Last edit: October 02, 2014, 04:17:35 AM by ChasingTheDream |
|
The graph of curecoin value is pretty disheartening. Essentially no upward movement for its entire life....yet I keep buying more and folding because I believe in the cause. Can anyone give some reasons why the downward movement won't continue? Any big plans that will increase the value long-term?
As a pretty vocal supporter of Curecoin I really wish I could say I'm aware of plans that will increase the long-term value of the coin, but sadly I'm not aware of any. CC 2.0 is certainly an improvement, but unless universities literally get behind CC 2.0 I'm still not sure where the value will come from. Additionally, it doesn't appear that the folding community is large enough to build an economy themselves such as with Dogecoin.
|
|
|
|
kingscrown
|
|
October 02, 2014, 03:53:41 AM |
|
seems the coin is dying. it had decent idea but somehow peopel dint follow. real sham as this oculd help many lives
|
|
|
|
ChasingTheDream
|
|
October 02, 2014, 04:52:07 AM Last edit: October 02, 2014, 05:07:19 AM by ChasingTheDream |
|
seems the coin is dying. it had decent idea but somehow peopel dint follow. real sham as this oculd help many lives It seems that the people that actually fold is a very small group. I thought this would bring new people in and it did but I don't think a lot of people that had never folded before actually stuck around. In all honesty I'm not sure how much longer I'll continue to fold. My reasons have nothing to do with Curecoin though. It has to do with the fact that folding on my hardware has been a non-stop battle since I started. When I finally got Core 17's running smoothly Stanford broke out the Core 16's again which causes my machines to crash constantly so the battle started all over again. I've been to the F@H forum and posted a couple of times. Members of the forum do try to help but I find the support from the "support" team to be lacking in many ways. Obvious things that would improve the user experience are clearly of no interest to them which is getting on my nerves to say the least. It seems they have more of an interest in getting people to go away then they do with improving things. So I'll probably oblige them soon. If new people ran into a fraction of the problems I ran into I honestly can't say I blame them for moving on though. Most people don't have the time to keep fighting the issues that come up. Neither do I.
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
October 02, 2014, 09:46:32 AM |
|
is the block explorer down? it says "coucou".
bump...
|
|
|
|
Luschtiha
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
|
|
October 02, 2014, 09:47:46 AM |
|
How many people are mining Btc and alt's? I think there are enough who are folding: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=Curecoin had a output of 4,012,966,688 points in May! These people where not only "new" folding miners, some were for sure people of other teams, but they are all back in their old teams and the miners are looking at the current price........
|
|
|
|
22naru
|
|
October 02, 2014, 12:56:01 PM |
|
i still folding so... i'm a believer in CC team and what they can do. keep F@H
|
|
|
|
Vorksholk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029
|
|
October 02, 2014, 09:46:04 PM |
|
Hey Curecoin, let's work together?
. ethical coins unite ..., let's join forces for specific projects.
Do you have a specific project that relates to science and are looking for a support partner, if so call on Einsteinium we will do what we can to forward your project.
Support partners usually will pledge to retweet, provide comments, likes, small donations, and endorsements for specific events they choose to get involved with.
Einsteinium is a 'cause coin' we seek to provide funding for science endeavors, we are seeking project partners for small projects involving: educational science. science fairs, science instructors (teachers, professors, mentors, etc ...), or anything else that has a heavy science influence.
Ebola is topical subject, EMC2 is considering making a public donation, we need to know if you are willing to join our campaign if we carry it forward? What kind of participation are you looking for? How many people are mining Btc and alt's? I think there are enough who are folding: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=Curecoin had a output of 4,012,966,688 points in May! These people where not only "new" folding miners, some were for sure people of other teams, but they are all back in their old teams and the miners are looking at the current price........ Quite a few people are still folding, we're nearly double the daily production of our closest competitor! seems the coin is dying. it had decent idea but somehow peopel dint follow. real sham as this oculd help many lives It's not dying, we're in a lull period while writing extensive amounts of code for cc2.0/3.0. is the block explorer down? it says "coucou".
Certainly seems to be down, that block explorer seems to have had some problems lately. Curecoin 3.0 will have a built-in block explorer. The graph of curecoin value is pretty disheartening. Essentially no upward movement for its entire life....yet I keep buying more and folding because I believe in the cause. Can anyone give some reasons why the downward movement won't continue? Any big plans that will increase the value long-term?
As a pretty vocal supporter of Curecoin I really wish I could say I'm aware of plans that will increase the long-term value of the coin, but sadly I'm not aware of any. CC 2.0 is certainly an improvement, but unless universities literally get behind CC 2.0 I'm still not sure where the value will come from. Additionally, it doesn't appear that the folding community is large enough to build an economy themselves such as with Dogecoin. I'm no economist and can't make any predictions about future price with any kind of certainty (hey, it's crypto!), but one of the roadblocks to the next generation of Curecoin is getting universities to integrate certificate signing into their existing computational research projects. We're working on making sure this integration is as easy and faultless as possible, which should ease any University's resistance towards implementing Curecoin into their work. Value is certainly an odd concept in cryptocurrency, and no one is entirely sure where value for any coin truly comes from. Some of it comes from speculation, some from utility, some from blind diversification, some from market manipulation, and some seems to materialize out of thin air. The hope is that the utility of Curecoin will push it to a higher valuation--it will offer similar utility to existing cryptocurrencies, and will have a signing algorithm which is resistant to Quantum Computers, unlike Bitcoin/Litecoin/Peercoin/Dogecoin...etc's ECDSA. Additionally, it is a significantly cleaner alternative to traditional mining--all computational power pointed towards generating coins is doing valuable computational research, and the relationship with university research facilities will hopefully increase the public image and set it aside from the black-market-related image that most major cryptocurrencies have been unfortunately shaded with. In addition to programming, the team is working with media contacts to further Curecoin's media exposure, though this has proven to be a lengthy process.
|
|
|
|
ChasingTheDream
|
|
October 03, 2014, 03:11:47 AM Last edit: October 04, 2014, 01:23:51 AM by ChasingTheDream |
|
The graph of curecoin value is pretty disheartening. Essentially no upward movement for its entire life....yet I keep buying more and folding because I believe in the cause. Can anyone give some reasons why the downward movement won't continue? Any big plans that will increase the value long-term?
As a pretty vocal supporter of Curecoin I really wish I could say I'm aware of plans that will increase the long-term value of the coin, but sadly I'm not aware of any. CC 2.0 is certainly an improvement, but unless universities literally get behind CC 2.0 I'm still not sure where the value will come from. Additionally, it doesn't appear that the folding community is large enough to build an economy themselves such as with Dogecoin. I'm no economist and can't make any predictions about future price with any kind of certainty (hey, it's crypto!), but one of the roadblocks to the next generation of Curecoin is getting universities to integrate certificate signing into their existing computational research projects. We're working on making sure this integration is as easy and faultless as possible, which should ease any University's resistance towards implementing Curecoin into their work. Value is certainly an odd concept in cryptocurrency, and no one is entirely sure where value for any coin truly comes from. Some of it comes from speculation, some from utility, some from blind diversification, some from market manipulation, and some seems to materialize out of thin air. The hope is that the utility of Curecoin will push it to a higher valuation--it will offer similar utility to existing cryptocurrencies, and will have a signing algorithm which is resistant to Quantum Computers, unlike Bitcoin/Litecoin/Peercoin/Dogecoin...etc's ECDSA. Additionally, it is a significantly cleaner alternative to traditional mining--all computational power pointed towards generating coins is doing valuable computational research, and the relationship with university research facilities will hopefully increase the public image and set it aside from the black-market-related image that most major cryptocurrencies have been unfortunately shaded with. In addition to programming, the team is working with media contacts to further Curecoin's media exposure, though this has proven to be a lengthy process. I'm certainly not an economist either, but I suspect value / demand of any crypto is probably going to boil down to what you can do with it over others and the community. I'm seeing things like credit cards backed by crypto's being talked about, acceptance by payment processors like PayPal, etc. Ideally we would get universities that sign the certificates to also allow people to use CC at their universities for tuition, buying books, etc. Actual utility that people would find valuable. Unfortunately I don't have the experience to even pursue such ideas, not to mention my second full time job is trying to keep my computers running. UGH. IMO, I do not think a crypto can survive if it's main purpose is to be traded on exchanges. I hope resistance to quantum computers is a feature that people will feel is important enough for adoption over other coins but honestly until you guys mentioned it, I didn't even know it was a threat. Curecoin is clearly much more productive in use of energy. No doubt about it, but there are other coins pursuing energy efficient methods as well. For instance, Gridcoin is going through a complete redesign so that CPU's and GPU's all go toward research (95% overall). Who knows how that will turn out but there is progress on a number of fronts. I think what we are doing to earn curecoins is a huge selling point but I don't know how to leverage that into adoption / acceptance by payment processors. I hope I'm not sounding harsh. I know you guys are working as hard as you can and CC2.0 is a huge improvement, but utility has been a concern of mine for some time. I haven't seen much mentioned about it.
|
|
|
|
beitris.dwlul
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
October 03, 2014, 03:43:35 AM |
|
this coin is almost dead now
|
|
|
|
natmccoy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
twitter.com/natmcmolecule
|
|
October 03, 2014, 04:26:40 AM |
|
this coin is almost dead now Did you not read the Dev's lengthy and encouraging response right above you? There is a lot of volume right now (sure, more selling than buying), Curecoin folders are contributing a large portion of the F@H work being done, and the dev is actively coding an upgraded and exciting new version of the coin. Besides, we are still at 4,000 satoshi. Your lazy, pessimistic comment contributes very little Anyway, thanks for the great response Vorksholk. & to ChasingTheDream, I agree what you have to say about utility, even if we just got a labcoat company or an online chemistry supply business to accept the coin it would be a start. If even one university accepted curecoin for tuition that would be huge!
|
|
|
|
ChristianVirtual
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
|
|
October 03, 2014, 09:47:55 AM Last edit: October 03, 2014, 10:10:06 AM by ChristianVirtual |
|
...a signing algorithm which is resistant to Quantum Computers ...
I keep reading it, but also keep not understanding it. Is this relevant for today's implementations ? Google seems to have something like an QC in the corner, NSA maybe too. Having it conceptual in mind is good, but need to spend efforts on it ? Can it be tested/validated ? Does it scares people off as techie-talk ? But again, I keep not understanding it. Can you explain it in simple terms to me ?
|
|
|
|
Vorksholk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029
|
|
October 04, 2014, 03:34:22 AM |
|
...a signing algorithm which is resistant to Quantum Computers ...
I keep reading it, but also keep not understanding it. Is this relevant for today's implementations ? Google seems to have something like an QC in the corner, NSA maybe too. Having it conceptual in mind is good, but need to spend efforts on it ? Can it be tested/validated ? Does it scares people off as techie-talk ? But again, I keep not understanding it. Can you explain it in simple terms to me ? Basically, modern signature schemes are based off of the multiplication of large prime numbers, and Shor's algorithm allows quantum computers to find the prime factorization of large numbers. Shor's algorithm requires a quantum computer to run, and thus factoring large numbers into their source prime numbers becomes practical. I'll give an example of RSA because it's much more straight-forward, but keep in mind a similar issue exists in a more complex form inside of ECDSA. (The following steps are information-only, you can skip them if you wish. If you want an example of creating/breaking an RSA key, you're in the right place. Summary at the bottom!) For public/private key cryptography, you need to generate a private key, and from this private key you can create or derive your public key. In the case of RSA, you generate a public key in the following manner: 1.) Choose two unique, large prime numbers. (p and q) 2.) Multiply these unique primes together (result = n) 3.) Compute: (p-1)*(q-1) (result = φ) 4.) Pick an integer between 1 and φ which doesn't share a prime factor with φ (result = e) 5.) Figure out what number (d) when multiplied by (e/φ) gives 1. In other words, the remainder of (d*e)/φ is 1.
So, let's do an example! :) 1.) My two primes (obviously waaaay to small to ever be practical for actual cryptography): p=7 and q=13 2.) Multiply them(n=91) 3.) Multiply (p-1) with (q-1): (6*12)φ=72 4.) Pick an integer sharing no prime factor with φ:e=11 5.) Number which when multiplied by (e/φ) gives us a remainder of one:d=51 -->Check: d*(e/φ)=649/72=9 + 1/72 or 9 remainder 1. YAY!
Now, your public key is the two numbers 'e' and 'n', so our public key is (11, 91). Your private key is the two numbers 'd' and 'n', so our private key is (51, 91).
Now, of course these numbers are ridiculously small and not practical for encryption, but let's demonstrate breaking this simple RSA key given the availability of a 'function' B(x) which, when fed a number, would return the prime factorization. Example: B(391) returns two numbers: 17 and 23. THIS FUNCTION B(x) is what quantum computers would provide.
Given only the public key, we have two variables initially: e = 11 n = 91 As you can see above, if we could calculate both p and q (the initial starting prime numbers), we could re-calculate the private key d. Given the starting primes, finding 'd' is deterministic. So, our only goal here is to calculate p and q. We already know pq, and we know p and q are both primes. To this effect, calling B(n) or B(91) yields {7, 13}. However, if we were unable to easily find the prime factorization of 91, we would be stuck brute-forcing: 2*x=91 (x not integer) 3*x=91 (x not integer) 5*x=91 (x not integer) 7*x=91 (x is an integer) For very large values of n, brute-forcing becomes computationally-infeasible. Another means of attacking RSA keys is the number field sieve, which is significantly more effective, and was used to crack a 768-bit RSA key. For a key of size 3072-bit, it would take all the computing power on Earth today longer (by orders of magnitude) than the age of the known universe to factor this number 'e' back into parts 'p' and 'q'.
Or, with a quantum computer of large enough (around 6144 'qubits' or quantum bits, a unit of quantum information which can exist in a superposition where it is both 1 AND 0), you'd just use Shor's algorithm (which has been demonstrated in factoring '15' into '3' and '5' (not impressive in itself of course, but the technology exists and Shor's algorithm is provably feasible) to call B(n). Summary: RSA is vulnerable to quantum computers. A component of the public RSA key (n) is simply the product of two very large prime numbers. The infeasibility of factoring n into the two original primes p and q is an essential property of RSA's integrity. If a method were created which, when given a number, was able to efficiently calculate the prime factorization, it would break RSA. Shor's algorithm can factor extremely large numbers into a prime factorization in a practical timeframe. If quantum computers were stable and were scalable to a desired size, Shor's algorithm would be able to factor an RSA public key to an RSA private key. Bitcoin doesn't use RSA, it uses ECDSA. However, Shor's 2nd algorithm from 1994 allows for solving discrete logarithms could attack ECDSA. Additionally, a smaller quantum computer would be required to attack a classically-similar security of ECDSA than for RSA (Breaking a 2048-bit RSA key needs around 4096 qubits, breaking a 224-bit ECDSA key would need somewhere between 1300 and 1600 qubits). If you're interested in reading a very dense document on quantum computers applied to Elliptical Curve Crypto, check out http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301141v2.pdf. One of Shor's proposed algorithms from 1994 allows for quantum computers to "easily" solve discrete logarithms. So, what does this mean? (You can skip this section as well)The discrete logarithm problem is another mathematical entity believed to be easy one way, hard the other. For example: q^b mod n ≡ x Where n is a primitive root of q (basically, for all possible values of r, the chances of getting any result (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) from (q^b MOD n) is equal) Solve for x. Knowing n, q, and b, this can be calculated very easily. Let's say n = 13. 6 is a primitive root. How we know 6 is a primitive root of 13: 6^1 MOD 13 = 6 6^2 MOD 13 = 10 6^3 MOD 13 = 8 6^4 MOD 13 = 9 6^5 MOD 13 = 2 6^6 MOD 13 = 12 6^7 MOD 13 = 7 6^8 MOD 13 = 3 6^9 MOD 13 = 5 6^10 MOD 13 = 4 6^11 MOD 13 = 11 6^12 MOD 13 = 1 6^13 MOD 13 = 6 6^14 MOD 13 = 10 6^15 MOD 13 = 8 etc... You can see a pattern. 6^1 MOD 13 is the same as 6^13 MOD 13 is the same as 6^25 MOD 13 is the same as 6^37 MOD 13. Using this looping pattern, we can predict 6^1994833 MOD 6 as being 6. Why? Because (1994833-1)/12 is an integer. We don't have to calculate 6^1994833, we just use a pattern. Cool, huh? 6^1994834 MOD 13 is 10. 6^1994835 MOD 13 is 8. Etc. Not really important to what we're doing right now, it's just awesome. :D
Aaaanyhow, back to what we were doing. q^b mod n ≡ x Let's set q as 6, n as 13, and b as 119. We could either use our pattern above or resort to asking a calculator, but x is easy to calculate. x = 11. That's easy. Now, try calculating: 6^b mod 13 = 119. For such a small modulus 13, this problem is trivial trial-and error. However, this problem becomes far more difficult with extremely large moduli, similar to a prime factorization.
So, let's summarize what we know so far. Bitcoin uses ECDSA ECDSA relies on the hardness of Discrete Logarithms. Discrete Logarithms can be easily solved by an algorithm by Peter Shor on quantum computational devices. So, if quantum computers can break ECDSA, how vulnerable is Bitcoin? The above image explains the basic process for generating a Bitcoin address. The address itself cannot be reversed to the public key of the ECDSA keypair, because it is protected by a hash. However, when you create and sign a transaction (spend Bitcoins, namely), your public key is revealed. Peers re-calculate your address based on the public key you revealed to the network, and if the produced address matches the source address, and the signature matches the public key, the transaction is accepted. So, coins sent to a Bitcoin address that has never sent a transaction can not be spent by someone with a Quantum computer. However, any address on the Bitcoin network that has previously made a transaction can be reversed to its private key, and an attacker can then empty the address. As such, Bitcoin addresses would have to be one-time-use, which isn't exactly practical. No quantum computers are available today which can crack ECDSA. Nor will they be here next year. Quantum-resistant signing algorithms are proven effective. They rely only on the existence of a hashing function that is one-way by design, which is fulfilled perfectly fine by SHA256, SHA3, RIPE160, Grostel, etc. etc. Quantum computers can't brute-force deterministic circuit-logic operations in a cost-effective manner. Hopefully that all made sense, I didn't expect to write a novella >.> Let me know if you have any other questions!
|
|
|
|
natmccoy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
twitter.com/natmcmolecule
|
|
October 05, 2014, 12:54:31 AM |
|
So the market cap is currently at $16,000, granted that is somewhat due to the recent decline in bitcoin value, but at some point it has got to be worth investing in. Currently $160 gets you a 1% stake in the project. I've been dribbling in orders as the price declined, but it's getting to the point where this project is undervalued. How much lower can the price get?
|
|
|
|
ChasingTheDream
|
|
October 05, 2014, 06:15:28 PM Last edit: October 05, 2014, 06:40:52 PM by ChasingTheDream |
|
@Vorksholk Thanks for the detailed information on quantum computer resistance! My concern is that you guys could be so far ahead of the actual threat that nobody is going to care. I also don't know how much additional work you are looking at for this specific implementation. Maybe it isn't much more work than you was going to have to do anyway for the certificate signing so it makes sense to do it now. I just hope it isn't adding months to the project at this point. So the market cap is currently at $16,000, granted that is somewhat due to the recent decline in bitcoin value, but at some point it has got to be worth investing in. Currently $160 gets you a 1% stake in the project. I've been dribbling in orders as the price declined, but it's getting to the point where this project is undervalued. How much lower can the price get?
Well price is the equilibrium point between supply and demand right? So we know the supply, but what about demand? My concern all along has been what do we do with Curecoins? If the main use of Curecoin is to sell them on exchanges for other coins that we can actually use then Curecoins price is going to remain under pressure. Building usage around a crypto coin is a lot of work and it obviously takes a lot of people. It needs a large community. I think we've got 15-20 active posters in the forum, who knows how many readers. There appear to be even less on the main http://www.curecoin.us/ forum and our reddit ( http://www.reddit.com/r/curecoin/). We obviously have a lot more folders than that but they don't appear to be active in the community. So where is the ability to use the coin going to come from? Who is going to build it? We could push to get accepted by payment processors but from what I've seen so far only the highest volume coins have made it. Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin. So even after CC2.0 comes out we still have quite a challenge ahead of us. Additionally, it appears that at least one of the more well establish coins have figured out that some of us like to fold and mining isn't viable for many people. For instance, the Dogecoin community is gathering donations to reward folders in Dogecoin. I can't help but wonder if we would be better off trying to embrace an existing established coin rather than trying to build a new coin from scratch and the Dogecoin community would seem to be a good candidate to at least have the discussion IMO. I know trying to get involved with an existing coin is a whole other can of worms but it may be easier to get involved with a coin that has an existing economy than trying to build one from scratch for a new coin. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
October 05, 2014, 07:56:08 PM |
|
I believe that the coin aim is to replace the useless mining of the other coins with useful computation. In this regard, the dogecoin effort doesn't deliver, nor does the current curecoin implementation. But version 2 will, so I am really looking forward to it! Let's hope people will understand the importance of this aspect of cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
ChasingTheDream
|
|
October 05, 2014, 08:39:24 PM Last edit: October 11, 2014, 06:58:13 PM by ChasingTheDream |
|
I believe that the coin aim is to replace the useless mining of the other coins with useful computation. In this regard, the dogecoin effort doesn't deliver, nor does the current curecoin implementation. But version 2 will, so I am really looking forward to it! Let's hope people will understand the importance of this aspect of cryptocurrencies.
Yep, I completely agree. The wasted energy and the actual release of Curecoin is why I stopped mining Dogecoin myself. Without usage of the coin though Curecoin is in a tough spot. I'm a believer in research based crypto. I have no idea what that will ultimately look like in a few years with the various progressions but I do believe the two concepts are perfect for each other. Of course there would be other difficult problems with "attaching" to another coin as well such as what would be done with the existing coins that we already have. So I suspect any possibility of doing that is already too late.
|
|
|
|
ChristianVirtual
Member
Offline
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
|
|
October 05, 2014, 10:37:09 PM |
|
Hopefully that all made sense, I didn't expect to write a novella >.> Let me know if you have any other questions!
Dear Vorksholk, It starts to makes sense in my brain ... Thank you very much for your time and "executive summary", much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|