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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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 [].


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!!

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.

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...).


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

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

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.