What do you believe is the minimum amount of Curecoin in order to stake in a day? I can't seem to stake at all maybe it is my weight?

This is both exciting that CC 2.0 is reaching advanced stages and disturbing in the economic implications. 

1. It has been stated since the beginning that CC 2.0 would translate 1:1 from CC 1.  Based on that, I and many others have been buying it, supporting it despite the general downtrend.  Without the reasonable hope of having the first quantum-secure blockchain, I would have never bought a single Curecoin, despite the apparent benefits of folding.  The implication of this promise is that SigmaX should be pre-mined and given to CC 1 holders in the exact same quantity as the outstanding count of CC 1 on the snapshot date with block #1, and future mining would then proceed at the same rate as CC 1.  This is the only way to keep the ratios the same, IMO. The proposal shown by Vorksholk above gives miners of SigmaX a tremendous advantage over owners of CC 1, which is against the original 1:1 promise. 

2. While I consider the developers to have gone into Curecoin work with a less than fair compensation on an hourly basis, they are free to pass on the project at any point to others. However, the promises made in public forums, regarding the economic characteristics of a cryptocurrency, obligate an honest person to stick with those promises.

3. The snapshot block # and estimated date should be published many weeksw in advance, as my coins are on exchanges.  It is bad enough that the exchanges get my current POS, but is totally unacceptable that they also receive my portion of SigmaX.

4. The Curecoin.net website needs a major overhaul.  Anyone who lands there might think we just print coins from folding, sell them, and give the proceeds to charity.  There is nothing permanent on the first page about the important work being done on quantum-computing resistance and related technical improvements in CC 2.0.  This is long overdue.

Very disappointed to hear that the dev. is making a new coin with the technology of Curecoin 2.0, sounds very fishy to me!!!  

It won't help at all Curecoin... And if It's successful it will probably divert people away from CC 2.0 project!

They already don't have enough time to work on Curecoin but they are going to make a new coin.

I guess the dev must be looking to insta mine this new coin...

I vote against this "NEW" coin and since I own 10% of curecoin I hope my voice will be heard

It is essentially a clone of CC2.0 but will use PoW instead of certificates very little needs to be done to make the changes to enable SigmaX to launch. I'd rather find out some specifics before concocting conspiracy theories.

Sorry, this is going to be a long post.

Hey everyone, didn't realize there'd be such a backlash to this SigmaX idea. If the Curecoin community doesn't like this idea, we won't do it. That being said, I'd like to make sure everyone understands the goals of SigmaX.

SigmaX is basically a more "pure" rendition of the cc2.0 code. Same core technology (quantum-resistant algorithms, mini-blockchain, virtually-inexistant currency scripting language), without the certificate system. There's a fairly large portion of the cryptocurrency community who have avoided our project on the basis of centralization. In 1.0, the centralization is, of course, the large premine for the folding payout pool. In 2.0, it will be the certificate signature authorities.

We see the benefits as:
Since it is so similar to the 2.0 code, it'll work as a great stress test of some of the currently-untested (in a high-impact environment) technologies we're using. Additionally, it'll be great for testing new features on, before putting them on the 2.0 network after the release of both.
Its more "pure" format lends itself well to mainstream adoption, which would get more attention for the Curecoin project.

It basically boils down to this:
When we release cc2.0, someone's going to fork it and slap a PoW on it. If they do it, the Curecoin community doesn't benefit at all--any press they get revolves around the "great decentralized quantum-resistant blockchain known as xyz," current Curecoin holders won't have any stake in the network, and the Curecoin ecosystem wouldn't be the de-facto go-to quantum chain solution. SigmaX targets the market of people who are uninterested in Curecoin anyway because of its centralization.

We're not doing a premine(other than the one paid out to curecoin holders)/instamine/ICO/IPO/crowdsale/devfund.


You bring up some good points--we don't want to dilute cc2.0 holders, so releasing SigmaX with some time-release premine paid out 1:1 for cc1.0 holders, and then keep the PoW mintage schedule the same as originally planned for cc1.0 might be a good option.

If we end up doing SigmaX, the snapshot block# will be very close to the release (no earlier than block 108000 which will be in about three weeks, and probably later), and will be published as soon as we decide on it. We could also do a time-released premine which pays out on a weekly basis for, say, a year based on current cc1.0/cc2.0 holdings.

The curecoin.net website does need an overhaul for sure.



For your first point, that was our initial thinking, but people's discussion of that diluting cc1.0 holders makes sense too.

As for specifics, we're thinking of roughly a similar mintage schedule to curecoin 1.0/2.0, a block time of 2-3 minutes, a quadratic weighting algorithm for difficulty targeting, and a custom hashing algorithm that'll make treechains easier to implement in the future, if there's interest.

We wanted to avoid people burning Curecoin cause we don't want people leaving the Curecoin ecosystem, but that's a good discussion idea to bring up as well.


As I noted above, it basically boils down to knowing that someone will fork cc2.0 after release, slap PoW on it, and it won't benefit the Curecoin ecosystem at all. SigmaX makes it so that PoW fork is under the Curecoin project, and benefits cc2.0.

As for time, SigmaX is closely related to the cc2.0 code, so most of the codebase for both is developed together. SigmaX is basically cc2.0 minus a few features (folding certificates, PoS).

Your vote has been counted though, if the community is against this idea, we're not going to pursue it.


If we do SigmaX, the snapshot will be after block 108000 (about three weeks away), and will be announced as soon as we decide on it.

The last thing we're trying to do is dilute the curecoin ecosystem--the logic is that, after release, cc2.0 will be forked and slapped with PoW, and that won't benefit Curecoin at all, since it's not the same development team, and Curecoin owners wouldn't have any stake in that 3rd party fork. So instead, we can create that fork, give Curecoin owners stake in the new network, and use it as a high-impact testing environment for cc2.0 updates.


Both coins would be largely based on the same codebase, so there's not much overhead (on the programming side, at least) to maintaining both.

100% PoS is still heavily criticized, and has significant security flaws. However, if people think a 1:1 premine of SigmaX paid out to current Curecoin holders and then a PoW schedule that models original 1.0 mintage schedule would be a good solution, it's certainly on the table.

The motto of Curecoin is certainly that PoW is a waste of resources, both energy and equipment. That being said, PoW does serve one very legitimate purpose--the ultimate decentralized security. And while I (and the Curecoin community) believe that a blockchain can function perfectly fine using a certificate system which distributes network control to trusted public universities, there are many people in the community that demand PoW-based networks for a variety of use cases.

In summary, SigmaX aims to provide a PoW-secured quantum-computer-resistant blockchain. After cc2.0 launches, it's only a matter of time until a 3rd party forks it to a pure PoW system. SigmaX does that preemptively, and gives Curecoin holders stake in the PoW fork of the project they've supported. Additionally, since it would be a product of the Curecoin development team, any press or attention SigmaX gets will spill over to Curecoin. After the launch of both coins, SigmaX would be used for final testing of features, to act as a testing buffer in front of cc2.0. SigmaX targets a different part of the market (people who don't believe the certificate system is decentralized enough), although admittedly there is certainly overlap.

And again, if the majority of the Curecoin community is against this idea, we won't launch it.

At this point, the most likely plan for SigmaX (based on all of your guys' feedback) is this:
-Do a 1:1 issue of SigmaX to Curecoin. Emission schedules up for discussion (weekly for a year based on continual cc1.0 holding to avoid accidentally causing market swings?).
-Make the SigmaX mintage schedule model follow Curecoin 1.0 minus the PoS
-The conversion of Curecoin 1.0 to SigmaX doesn't involve burning--you keep your Curecoin, and you receive SigmaX. When 2.0 launches, your cc1.0 converts 1:1 to cc2.0, as has always been the plan.

What are people's thoughts on this idea?

why not close source it for now so no forking is possible?

If the point of SigmaX is to provide a more decentralized form of CC2.0 doesn't making a premine any greater than 1-2% contradict this goal? I would be more in favor of a block subsidy to be paid over the life of the coin, this could have the added bonus of encouraging ppl to buy CC to get SigmaX from snapshots. This would also avoid the centralized nature of a larger upfront premine. Also for SigmaX to be an effective test bed for CC2.0 it does need to be an active blockchain I fear any large premine would scare away potential users thus deducting further from the intention that SigmaX be an effective test bed.
Also I would like to know if the devs intend to ensure that the CC1.0 premine for folders isn't eligible for any initial conversion towards SigmaX.

you made a good point...
will be fair if there will be bigger amount given to Curecoiners (instead of <%1... >1000% of yearly mining), like ethereum did with the pre-sale, distributed amount of coins which would take years to mine.
curecoin is not expensive (not far from ATL right now), so a bigger share for folders is fair.

another thing that worries me: if the new coin is GPU mineable, it might take away power from folding@home
would be better to switch directly to CC2.0 on a testnet, and then CC2.0 mainnet. and don't do the POW SigmaX at all

I think if you allow asic u restrict the distribution and would certainly need to consider splitting the pow into channels so that its viable to use cpu/gpu and asic. And I certainly would steer away from 50% premine in favor of block subsidy paid weekly perhaps to a time locked address. Now this would in effect widen the distribution across folders & miners, while I can certainly see that some might shift away from folding to get some SigmaX you have less incentive to do so when you can earn CC and SigmaX by folding. Even if the block subsidy is 50% its not a premine more of a "founders fee" if you will.

Edit: It may also pay to incentivize folders further, perhaps it could be done by splitting the block subsidy to pay some portion to folders, for example 40% to Curecoin holders 10% to folders. It could be distributed to the folders via the CC folding pool. Similarly it might be possible to use CC2.0 as a means of getting miners interested in folding or at least CC in general by having a small block subsidy of CC2.0 (1-2%?) paid out to SigmaX holders. This way both coins would be tied together and holders in one coin can gather into both economies but with the balance in the favor of CC long term supporters but in such a way that no one is left out because of the opportunity over time to become a supporter simply by owning some of either currency. If subsidy was paid daily/weekly it would certainly help stimulate activity on the blockchain which would be perfect for testing out how the new software performs.