It already is. CLAM operates on consensus, not as a dictatorship. Creative couldn't force through an unpopular change even if she wanted to. The community would refuse to switch to the net version. The same goes for JD. JD currently has a majority of the staking CLAMs, but if it tried to force through an unpopular change I'm sure it would soon find itself being the sole staker on an irrelevant side fork.
How many coins is JD staking again a day? 1300 of 1440? Clam feels like a dictatorship for sure at this point and is absolutely centralized. Re-read what I said. JD only has that many CLAMs because people agree with how JD acts. If JD was to attempt to make an unpopular change to the CLAM rules I'm sure it would quickly lose its position as majority staker. |
|
|
|
The vote right now indicates that people disagree with you anyways Doog...  That's fine. I'm OK with people disagreeing with me. It doesn't really matter what the result of the vote is since the ownership of forum accounts isn't decided by voting. |
|
|
|
I missed the first game because my deposit took too long to confirm.
At 9:30 the first game ended, so I tried to join the 2nd game.
It took the entrance fee off my balance, but just hung saying "connecting". I waited 10 minutes, asked in the chat, but nothing happened. An hour later I checked again and it's still saying "connecting", and the buy-in is still missing from my balance.
What do?
Hmmm, that's really disconcerting. Sounds like the site wasn't able to handle the increased load, since I've heard a few others mentioning a similar experience. your best bet is to probably just contact support about having your buy in refunded, or otherwise just ignore the loss. It's possible that it took more than 10 minutes to connect to the game, then connected when I wasn't looking, and by the time I looked again it was all over. But that doesn't seem very fair. For how long am I expected to watch the "connecting..." screen? |
|
|
|
Don't over-complicate the solution and don't be overly idealistic.
Not directed at any particular idea, and not meant to be rude, but keep it in mind as a mantra.
I have seen many devs, coins, and communities make this mistake time and time again.
The simplest and fastest implemented ideas that actually make a big difference are the best ones.
Well, the simplest and fastest idea to implement is always "do nothing", closely followed by "cut off all digging with a hard fork". Neither seems optimal. |
|
|
|
I'd say the control over the project is insane atm. The amount of brown nosing that has to be done to get a link on the OP is truly stupid.
I didn't have to do any to get JD in OP. I didn't even ask for it to be put there as far as I remember. I'm not even sure if it is there. It doesn't matter to me whether it's there or not. The OP post is for Creative to list the projects she approves of. Complaining because people refuse to advertise your commercial site for free is out of order in my opinion. What if tomorrow someone opens a 0% edge and 0% invest dice site and the JD link is removed from the OP because why would any noob play at 1% or invest at 10%?
That would be great, so long as it was someone trustworthy. I think if a site is "legit" and performs the CLAM task they say the will, then it should be listed on the CLAM OP.
My site is legit and performs the task it says it will. I think it should be listed prominently on your site. Oh, wait. It's YOUR site, and YOU get to decide what you list and what you don't? Good. Same with Creative's OP post. It's up to her what she lists and what she doesn't. |
|
|
|
I'm happy to see so much discussion about the current "digger situation" - even though I don't see much in the way of consensus forming... It can be implemented with various levels of complication and reach; from the extremely simple to all encompassing.
We will talk about a more simple implementation at the moment (which doesn't include block size at all).
I've chosen to go this route as the more complicated versions will only confuse what is already a rather complicated change.
Further, the additional complication concerns fee markets, bloat, DDoS and a variety of other issues which are not currently being discussed.
Can you say more about how the fee-per-block would be decided upon in the absence of a dynamic block size? You've talked in the past about the fee being set by the market based on supply and demand which I understood to be based on recent block sizes. How does that work in this simplified proposal? I'm unclear as to whether the fee-per-block would be required by new consensus rules, or be more like bitcoin fees, where miners set whatever fees they like. 1. It is still an externality because the suppliers in your model are not the ones incurring the cost.
I don't think I understood this point. The suppliers are the stakers, and the cost is incurred by anyone running a full node. But anyone running a full node can stake if they choose to, and would be helping the network if they did. So who is incurring the cost of storing unspent outputs without also supplying the service of securing the network, except for those who choose not to contribute to securing the network for whatever reasons? Or is your argument that the costs are shared equally between all stakers, but the fees are shared in proportion to staker balance? Because that's just how PoS works. Already the cost of running a staking node is independent of the number of coins being staked whereas the rewards for doing so are proportional to the number of coins being staked. I also think there may be more to the dumping than just the digger. Nearly all alts being in the shitter over the past month for example.
Indeed. I have been selling some of my CLAMs on the way down. It is clear that the digger has many more CLAMs to dig, and we have no reason to believe that he won't keep dumping them, and so it seems rational to sell high and buy back lower once the dumping is over. I believe that The Great Clam should be a council instead of a single entity.
It already is. CLAM operates on consensus, not as a dictatorship. Creative couldn't force through an unpopular change even if she wanted to. The community would refuse to switch to the net version. The same goes for JD. JD currently has a majority of the staking CLAMs, but if it tried to force through an unpopular change I'm sure it would soon find itself being the sole staker on an irrelevant side fork. The question of whether everyone automatically has the right to advertise their service in this thread's OP is separate from the running of the CLAM network itself. This is Creative's thread. If you don't like it, make your own. it's rational to want to do something about the situation. To remove digging altogether would remove Clams' best and unique feature, so it is not a reasonable option. As Bitcoin and most other cryptocurrencies have built-in reductions in their distribution methods, I believe it is reasonable to propose reducing dig rewards to half at (about) 1.5 years from the release of Clams, and continue to halve the dig reward every 1.5 years from now on. I'm not a programmer, but I imagine reducing the dig reward could be done by imposing a 50% (and later 75% and so on) fee on transactions from the original distribution outputs that gets paid to a burn address. Assuming the software is ready to go, this can be announced a month or so ahead of the fork to make things fair for everyone, including the large digger.
I also feel that something should be done, if CLAM is to remain something that people want to use. The current massive ongoing dig appears to be worth something like 500k CLAMs, and started when the active supply was something like twice that, and so it will end up adding 50% to the active supply. Note that although it appears significant, that 500k CLAMs represents only around 3% of the initial distribution. There is another 12 million CLAMs out there still waiting to be dug up. There is no guarantee that the current 500k CLAM dig is the last big dig, or even the biggest one. There are very likely huge numbers of CLAMs waiting to be dug from other old wallets - think of the MtGox wallet, the SilkRoad mixer wallet, various other mixing services and other black market sites, BTC-e, satoshidice, and many others. So while it's possible that we get through this current dig and still have some investors brave enough to hold CLAM throughout, will they stick around the next time it happens, or the time after that? The counter-argument to this is that changing the network rules now would somehow violate the sanctity of the network. That opinion, in my own opinion, is unnecessary fundamentalism. Software and cryptocurrency networks can evolve, and I believe the supermajority of Clam stakeholders do not share that fundamentalist position.
The network rules have changed a few times in the past already. "Proof-of-working-stake" itself wasn't part of the original rules. Initially staking rewards were based on the age of the output that staked, meaning there was no incentive to stake your coins 24/7 - you could check in once a month, claim your stakes, then turn the wallet off again without incurring much if any penalty. There was also a staking lottery adding after launch, where the staking reward was pseudo-randomly assigned, ranging from 0.1 to 1000 CLAMs, and later the lottery was turned off. So there is no "sanctity of the network" in that sense. The rules have been changed before and can be changed again, so long as there is consensus to do so. I don't see any real difference between changing the rules to say "your 4.6 CLAM dig is only worth 2.3 CLAM now because we had a halving last week" and changing them to say "your 4.6 CLAM dig is only worth 2.3 CLAM now because of blockchain storage fees". In either case the guy digging his CLAMs only gets half as many, and he presumably doesn't care why. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that 2 unspent outputs of 5 clams each stake better than 1 unspent output of 10 clams?
Yes, but only because when the 10 CLAM output stakes you whole 10 (actually, 11 after staking) CLAM wallet is tied up for 8 hours while the newly staked output matures. If your wallet was split into two 5's, when one of them stakes, the other one isn't frozen, only half your value is locked up waiting 8 hours to mature. |
|
|
|
My account isn't a community based project.
Exactly! And neither is hers. You seem to be confusing the bitcointalk account with the CLAM project. They are different things, in the same way that the bitcoin.org domain isn't the Bitcoin project. We don't get to vote who controls bitcoin.org if we don't like the current owner. We make a new site and if it's more popular it will become the default place that people go. |
|
|
|
|
Also, I just played the new "pot" type game.
Two of us played, I killed the other guy, so I was the only player in the game.
At the bottom of the screen it says:
"Pot 0.0002; winning 0.000184"
What happened to the other 0.000116 BTC?
The missing amount is 8% of the pot. Is there really an 8% fee, or is this a bug?
|
|
|
|
|
I missed the first game because my deposit took too long to confirm.
At 9:30 the first game ended, so I tried to join the 2nd game.
It took the entrance fee off my balance, but just hung saying "connecting". I waited 10 minutes, asked in the chat, but nothing happened. An hour later I checked again and it's still saying "connecting", and the buy-in is still missing from my balance.
What do?
|
|
|
|
I read that staking 10 to 50 clams is a good number to start. I also read that splitting balance into different address may increase chance to stake. I now have 10 clams in one address, I can buy some more to increase my chance, do I send my new clams to a same or new address or should I split them into many address holding 5 each?
It doesn't matter whether you use one address or many. What matters is the size of each unspent output in your wallet. If you send 10 CLAMs to the same address 5 times, you don't end up with a single 50 CLAM output at that address. You end up with 5 outputs each worth 10 CLAMs. Those 5 outputs will stake just as well as if you had sent them to 5 different addresses. Turn on coin control in your CLAM client settings and it will let you look at your unspent outputs. |
|
|
|
Would you like the SuperCLAM account controlled someone elected?
Let's have a 4th option for those who don't understand the question. Are you saying that we should vote to decide whether SuperCLAM gets to keep control of her bitcointalk account? Need to see candidates position on issues and past record before I can vote.
Where do they stand on gun control, abortion, Iran, etc?
I think abortion should be illegal after the 50th trimester. |
|
|
|
Why not create a distribution to clam holders/supporters before the digger started and call it Pearl or something more clever
The new coin could be an experiment that exists with Clam and will allow people to have a choice
I am thinking similar property's with clam and just a smaller distribution
If the dice sites supported the new coin, that would be awesome as well.
You know where the CLAMs were before the digger started? There were almost all in the JD staking wallet. Using a snapshot of the blockchain from that point in time would give almost all the coins to me... |
|
|
|
Free mixing is a great promotion but is there anyone in this forum who can vouch this mixing service? I would like to see someone post here that successfully mixed their coins with spacechain.io
I'd like to grab the free mixing opportunity but still I'm hesitant to do.
Have you seen joinmarket? It's almost free - fees are typically 0.01% or so - but the best part is that you don't have to trust anyone since your coins never leave your wallet. |
|
|
|
The digging could be done next week if there was a Bid that could support it. I'm sure the digger is more scared of us, than we are of them. They just want to get their BTC and bounce.
Just a couple of weeks ago there was more than 100 BTC of buy orders at or above the current price. It didn't tempt the digger then. Why do you think it would now? I've thought further about the conversation in the Just-Dice room last evening and I've been trying to imagine it as if it was Satoshi selling his BTC.
I'm sure some people would want to cut Satoshi off or impose addition "age" fees on the transactions. I don't like it! Let the digger dig!
Maybe it would be a good idea to try having the discussion here too. I think I started it by saying that CLAM isn't very useful as a currency right now, because we have a huge amount of digging going on, which puts a constant downward pressure on the price, and results in CLAM being a bad investment. Then I asked if people agreed (almost all did) and asked for suggestions as to what if anything we could or should do about it. I understand Bay's point of view. He has a financial interest in digging continuing as it currently is. But what does anyone else think? Some suggestions that came up last night: (this isn't a quote of anything, but I don't know how to make a block of text without saying 'quote') a) CreativeCuriosity has for a while now had an idea of changing the fee structure for CLAM. It's quite wide-ranging, and aims to stop us ever having to go through the whole "large block" debate that is currently dividing the Bitcoin community. Her plan is to have the block size limit and transaction fees adjust based on historical block sizes such that the market finds its own level. As a part of this the transaction fee would depend on the amount of this an output spent on the blockchain before it could be pruned, since it costs everyone more to store an output for 5 years and to store it for 5 minutes.
While interesting, I don't think this really addresses the problems caused by the ongoing digging activity.
b) Some kind of a hard fork could reduce the value of un-dug CLAMs over time in some way or another.
The reduction could range from a total end to digging (which some argue removes one of the unique selling points of the coin) to such a small reduction that it would have no effect. The hard fork would need to be planned and announced in advance to give people a chance to update their client software, and so the digger would simply dig all his coins before the fork happened, unless he really isn't paying attention.
c) CC seems to be of the opinion that we can just ride this out, and everything will be fine. Since the price of CLAM is down, the digger will for some reason start selling much faster and run out of his stash within a month or two.
I think the reasoning is that he wants a certain number of BTC per day from his dumping, and so that requires ever increasing numbers of CLAM per day - but the dig chart doesn't support that idea. His rate of digging over time seems pretty constant despite the big price drop.
d) Just-Dice should stop using CLAM and use something else instead, with a predictable supply going forward. It could be a fork of CLAM, so everyone keeps their current balance, but on a separate chain.
This seems much like (b), but presumably without the blessing of the CLAM devs. Such a contentious hard fork isn't good for anyone.
Personally I have no idea what's best. I just know that the current situation is making a lot of people unhappy. |
|
|
|
You made me have to look at the blockchain...  First block was 733 and last was 8995 So there were 8262 blocks with clammettes. So 8995-6539 means he's been through 2456 block already. 2456/8262 = .2972 See http://dpaste.com/1KZAGHDEach line is: # block number # number of 4.6 CLAMs created in that block # cumulative number of 4.6 CLAMs so far # percentage of the way through the distribution from the start # percentage of the way through the distribution from the end So find the line for block 6539: 6539 356 2338198 72.89 27.11 ie. it's 27.11% of the way from the end. Also some of the blocks in the 733-8995 range are not distribution blocks. I notice the last dig was blocks 6519 and 6521. Looking at 6520 it's only for 2 clams. Then I figured maybe we skipped every other block. 6518 is for 2 clams too. But 6517 is also 2 clams. So not just every other block.
Different blocks have different numbers of 4.6's. So just counting blocks isn't very accurate. Doog, I don't remember how you estimated his total, but I though you took into account some of the non-distributed clam blocks. I don't know if Xploited has the exact number of distribution blocks.
I think I was looking at some of the bigger blocks he had already dug through, calculated how many of the CLAMs he dug from that block, and found the percentage was much the same from block to block and so extrapolated for the whole distribution. I also looked at a few of his transactions. I was looking to see if I could see a trend, of sending clams to poloniex. Several of the digs ended up in the same address with a total of 46.2 clams, or 10 rewards. Almost like he's grouping the clams for staking. Then there were other addresses that ended up with 4 or 9 clams. I couldn't find a pattern.
I think those are poloniex deposit addresses he's sending to. Did you find any that ever staked? I don't think poloniex stakes their wallets. I don't know why he keeps switching deposit addresses. Maybe he's making new poloniex accounts every 10 digs? That would explain it I guess. But he could also be clicking the 'new address' button to change addresses. Edit: here's the same data in chart form.  He's dug down to block 6516, so has dug around 27% of the CLAMs. (Of course we don't know that he doesn't have another couple of wallets of the same size which he will start working on once he's done with this one) |
|
|
|
Could you point to the post which won it? And did it really have lower chances of losing?(highest EV I mean)
These two posts: leading to a 49.64716% chance of winning.
you have a 49.64812% chance of winning.
chance of winning = 100 * (1 - ((100 - 1.0664) / 100) ** 64) = 49.649475445976265%
And yes, they have a higher EV because on average they risk less. The EV is -1% of the amount you risk, so minimising the amount you risk maximises the EV. The corollary to this of course is that the optimal strategy for maximising your EV is to risk 0 - ie. stop playing. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? |
|
|
|
Hmm just thought about it, has OP yet paid the prize he has claimed to pay to the best method or is he still searching for more strats?
He already paid, and it's likely we have the best strategy already. |
|
|
|
Initial bet : 0.0001BTC
On lose multiply by : 1.0001010101x
Playing at 9900x
If you win your first bet you stop with a profit of 9899 * 0.0001 = 0.9899 BTC The goal is to make a profit of 1 BTC. I think you need to play with a higher multiplier or something. hehehe yeah.  Here's a plot of the probability of doubling up against the payout multiplier you use:  I'd love an explanation of why it tops out at 0.496522222! |
|
|
|
Initial bet : 0.0001BTC
On lose multiply by : 1.0001010101x
Playing at 9900x
If you win your first bet you stop with a profit of 9899 * 0.0001 = 0.9899 BTC The goal is to make a profit of 1 BTC. I think you need to play with a higher multiplier or something. Let's set the payout multiplier (m) and work everything out from there. m = 10001, say The probability (c) of a bet winning at that multiplier is: c = 0.99 / m The starting bet to win 1 BTC at multiplier m is: a = 1.0 / (m - 1) The amount we need to multiply the stake by when we lose to maintain the same net profit is: r = (1+a) / ((m-1)*a) = a+1 = m / (m - 1) The stake on the nth bet will be: a * r ** (n-1) The sum of stakes for the first n bets will be: a * (1 - r**n) / (1 - r) The number of bets we can afford to make is: math.floor(math.log((a - 1 + r) / a, r)) = math.floor(math.log(2, r)) The probability of winning in the first n bets will be: (1 - (1 - c) ** n) And so the probability of doubling up successfully is: (1 - (1 - c) ** math.floor(math.log(2, r))) Using this we can quickly calculate the chance of doubling up for various payout multipliers: >>> for m in range(2, 20):
c = 0.99 / m; a = 1.0 / (m-1); r = a+1;
print m, (1 - (1 - c) ** math.floor(math.log(2, r)))
2 0.495
3 0.33
4 0.43374375
5 0.484150392
6 0.417817125
7 0.456617399413
8 0.483416946706
9 0.4415940551
10 0.465006203908
11 0.483238980643
12 0.452678497552
13 0.469363352144
14 0.483175196779
15 0.494793694573
16 0.472032613906
17 0.483147625356
18 0.492797130255
19 0.473835743219
>>> for m in range(100, 1000, 100):
c = 0.99 / m; a = 1.0 / (m-1); r = a+1;
print m, (1 - (1 - c) ** math.floor(math.log(2, r)))
100 0.491634447195
200 0.495807062928
300 0.495521270088
400 0.495378549439
500 0.496292293111
600 0.496068806433
700 0.495909161472
800 0.49641338199
900 0.496251020552
1000 0.496121110593
2000 0.496285044722
3000 0.496505870593
4000 0.496491615824
5000 0.496483063523
6000 0.496477362221
7000 0.496473289977
8000 0.496470235856
9000 0.496467860466
10000 0.496515810046
20000 0.496507258615
30000 0.496521023585
40000 0.496515444608
50000 0.496522066276
60000 0.496518173205
70000 0.49651539243
80000 0.49651953749
90000 0.496517223088
100000 0.496520356059
200000 0.496521993186
300000 0.496520877415
400000 0.496521565628
500000 0.496521978562
600000 0.496521423111
700000 0.496521738439
800000 0.496521974923
900000 0.49652215884
1000000 0.496521807542
2000000 0.496522220475
3000000 0.496522191972
4000000 0.496522177798
5000000 0.496522169092
6000000 0.496522163469
7000000 0.496522159358
8000000 0.496522218726
9000000 0.49652220935
1000000 0.496521807542
2000000 0.496522220475
3000000 0.496522191972
4000000 0.496522177798
5000000 0.496522169092
6000000 0.496522163469
7000000 0.496522159358
8000000 0.496522218726
9000000 0.49652220935
10000000 0.496522201834
20000000 0.496522218205
30000000 0.496522223275
40000000 0.496522214705
50000000 0.496522217672
60000000 0.496522221587
70000000 0.496522222003
80000000 0.496522225028
90000000 0.496522226175
100000000 0.496522217899
200000000 0.496522220646
300000000 0.496522230602
400000000 0.496522220218
500000000 0.496522232255
600000000 0.496522238624
700000000 0.496522223637
800000000 0.496522212528
900000000 0.49652220586
This is consistent with my post back in February where I found: I can make ever increasing longer sequences which do slightly better, but it appears never to beat 49.65222222222% chance of doubling.
What's the significance of that 49.65222222222% number? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
