A few months back (when the 'lottery' block reward was stopped) an error was made when the CLAM client was changed which resulted in it being about a million times easier to stake blocks than before. It took a few hours for the difficulty to adjust fully but it did so without human intervention.
Are you telling me... if I had been there... then... I co-could have gotten...  Every 16 seconds lots of peers staked blocks. All but one were orphaned. This kept up for a while as difficulty adjusted. Massive amounts of forking/orphaning, but it all worked itself out just fine. |
|
|
|
So since just-dice stakes the majority of clams daily, what happens if that staking stops?
How does it affect the network?
The difficulty adjusts downwards so the remaining staking nodes stake 1 block per minute between them. A few months back (when the 'lottery' block reward was stopped) an error was made when the CLAM client was changed which resulted in it being about a million times easier to stake blocks than before. It took a few hours for the difficulty to adjust fully but it did so without human intervention. 2nd question is:
Sometimes my staking icon turns red, like it stops staking.. I have mature coins though, why is it doing this?
Note, i'm on v1.4.7 and sometimes I do get stakes.
I've no idea, sorry. What does the red icon's tooltip say if you hover the mouse over it? |
|
|
|
You don't need a full copy of the historical chain to create the UTXO
I think you have that backwards. How can you create the UTXO if you don't have a full copy of the chain? a DHT can ensure that a full copy exists even if you only have a portion of it.
I don't think it can ensure that. All the nodes storing a certain block could disappear from the network at the same time. Where's the full copy now? |
|
|
|
So it seems that when an output in the hot wallet stakes, the guy who owns the deposit address gets the full stake reward. That's probably a bug, right? In this commit (which is now part of the official client) I made 'listaccounts' work when staking is enabled, but not include staked coins in the returned numbers. So I guess you're not using that to detect deposits, and whatever you are using can't tell the difference between staking and depositing. |
|
|
|
Nice dooglus that you put it in terms of betting luck.
Staking is pretty much like betting, except you get your stake back whether you win or lose... it's a free lottery that you get to enter every 16 seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Seems weird how to double your bet you set the multiplier to "1" not "2".
|
|
|
|
I just found a couple of bugs in the site: 1) I deposited 300 CLAM, waited until my deposit had 6 confirmations, but my balance still showed 0. I asked in the chat how many confirmations were needed. I was told "1". I tried betting 1 CLAM at 49.5%, won, and my balance changed from 0 to 301. It seems my account was credited, but my on-screen balance wasn't updated until I bet. 2) The site-profit lags one bet behind. When I started betting, the site's profit was around -75. I lost a bunch then won it back. My last bet before taking this screenshot won 25 CLAM. It should have taken the site profit to -76, but the site profit shows as -51:  I then bet just 1 CLAM, and lost. The site profit changed from -51 to -76. Notice how my number of bets and the site number of bets both go up by 1, so I'm the only person playing, but while my amount bet goes up by 1 the site amount bet goes up by 25... Clearly this is a bug:  Then I bet 2 CLAMs and won. The site profit changed from -76 to -75:  At each step the site profit was one step behind reality. |
|
|
|
You would be amazed at the sudden decline in the IQ of game/casino coding. I have nearly 0 knowledge in coding yet i have found an average of 5 bugs in every released casino. All serious problems.
Please PM me details of the 5 serious bugs you found at Just-Dice. I will pay you well for them. |
|
|
|
Yeah but it would still be a measly 1%. I want a site with a decent return on my investment, like what casinos get on table games. I want a good 2% minimum.
1% is plenty high enough if you're prepared to stay invested for a while, and if the site has a decent bet volume. Something else the world needs is a poker room with a reasonable rake, like preferably 1%. Only problem is that nobody could invest in it because there's no house bank involved. However, if Alex wanted to make a crapload of money he might consider setting up a 1% rake poker room. I'd join. At present there is exactly zero poker rooms with 1% rake. The usual rate is 5%. Problem is that with rake they're taking 5% of the money you win plus 5% of your own money that you risked. So in essence you're paying 10% rake, assuming that the hand got down to two players early on. That's unacceptable by any standard. In fact, for that reason the rake should actually be 0.5% for it to be reasonable, since that would work out to 1% of winnings for the reason I just explained.
So 1% is far too small when you're the one collecting it, but too big when you're the one paying it? I see where you're coming from, but does that sound fair to you? Re. your point that a 5% rake is in essence 10% when 2 people are heads-up, I don't see it: Suppose I bet 100 units, you call for 100 units, and I win the pot. The house rakes 5% of the 200 pot, and I get 190 units back. Suppose it was a 50/50 chance of winning. I've a 50% chance of achieving a 1.9x payout, effectively. That's a 5% house edge. (50 * 1.9 = 95). I don't see how you're getting 10% unless you think the coins you risk shouldn't be raked. That's not how it works. When you bet 100 units at 50% on bitdice.me you get a 1.98x payout - 50*1.98 = 99%, for a 1% edge. They're charging 1% on your stake as well as on your profit too. That doesn't make it a 2% rake. |
|
|
|
One of the reasons for the message you're seeing is that transactions can't be bigger than 100kB in size. It seems unlikely that that is the problem unless you have hundreds of tiny outputs in your wallet from farming a faucet or something.
You're right this all come from seedtrue faucet and have many hundred transaction I was try to send just 2 clam and that message still appear i don't know what to do max balance 1.7 clam was succeed sending Well, each input to a transaction adds roughly 150 bytes to the transaction size, and transactions can be no bigger than 100k bytes. 100k / 150 = 666, so you're limited to about 666 inputs per transaction. The biggest transactions to recently appear on the blockchain: http://khashier.com/tx/610f97832734b598e59d94124e995f845fe6e1678cdf8435c65c5196eb097666 654 inputs, 2 outputs, 96585 bytes http://khashier.com/tx/16ac565c4c0e6840427dc6bc4b591152200216b1d1e0c623a599d3798435b2e6 659 inputs, 2 outputs, 97324 bytes http://khashier.com/tx/3f3dcdcbc958b46d2157b5d42c1596ead49fa1642fdb67f93943580e587d8901 608 inputs, 1 output, 89765 bytes I guess those were yours, and as you can see each is close to the 100kB limit. So that's why it was failing when you tried to send all your outputs in a single transaction. |
|
|
|
I have read somewhere that some dice sites publishing a different hash from the acctual hash to fool people into thinking that their service was provably fair.
I'm not sure that has ever happened. One site (dicebitco.in) was found to be skipping rolls - if your next provably fair roll was destined to win then they would skip it and give you the next one. That's the closest to what you describe that I can remember. They shut down shortly that cheat was discovered. And of course it was only even discoverable *because* they were provably fair. That's what provable fairness does - it lets you detect when a site is cheating you. |
|
|
|
So using faucet was abusing. I was 86% bc I was probably one of the few using it.
Sounds like the same issue PrimeDice was having. They offer a faucet as a cheap was of bringing in new players then complain when people use it too much. Surely the answer is to put limits in place, and be clear about those limits. If you don't want someone claiming more than N times per hour, don't let them claim more than N times per hour. Simple as. No need for all this drama. |
|
|
|
How many CLAMs is good enough to keep up for staking?
The rate of staking is proportional to the number of CLAMs. So twice as many is twice as good, but half as many is only half as good. Simple as that  Well, it was a silly question. |
|
|
|
Maybe, but I'm not even going to have read far enough to evaluate that part of their protocol.
I'm going to get as far as "32-bit seed" and "shuffle" and go, "oh crap they can't do math!" and go on to someplace else.
OK, I missed the 32-bit client seed part. That's no good. |
|
|
|
All of the above plus, He didn't really get into the digging aspect of clams either. The fact that most users already own them, Etc....
It seems my comment wasn't accepted. But FreeJack's comment was. He wrote: "Proof Of Shellfish". Such journalism. |
|
|
|
How many CLAMs is good enough to keep up for staking?
The rate of staking is proportional to the number of CLAMs. So twice as many is twice as good, but half as many is only half as good. |
|
|
|
Well you should have put some kind of notice on the site, Alex. Was that too difficult for you? How the hell was anybody supposed to know if they don't know about this forum?
That's a fair point. I recently revisited bitdice explicity because I heard they had merged all the sites into one, and still had a hard time figuring out what was going on. And I had already read about the need to 'import' my other accounts. Here's what you do, Alex, you set up a casino with roulette tables in it and nothing else. You call it bitroulette.me. That way investors make a good 2.7%, or on American roulette they make 5.26%. At 1% it's still practically an even game and investors have a very real chance of losing money. This 1% dice stuff is a complete waste of time. How do you attract players to the roulette site? Simple. you make the 0 square slightly smaller than the other numbers so the edge is only 2.2% instead of 2.7. That way everyone who wants to play roulette will leave every other casino and go to yours. Then you take the 0.2% as your commision and give investors a full 2%, TWICE what they get from dice sites. Right now you're just one of countless btc dice sites, all with the same edge. Why would anyone choose yours over the others?
2.2% edge roulette. That could just work! But even better: 1% roulette... If each of the numbers 1 through 36 was 11 units wide, and the zero was just 4 units wide, that would give a total wheel circumference of 11*36+4 = 400 units. Betting on a single number would win with probability 11/400 and pay out 36x, for an expected return of 36*11/400 = 0.99 per unit bet - a 1% house edge. Betting on zero could pay out 99x, for an expected return of 99*4/400 = 0.99 per unit bet. Then the investors get the 1% they're used to, and the roulette players get a decent chance of winning for a change! |
|
|
|
Everybody knows shuffling a pack of cards takes 240 bits. If you do it with less than 240 bits everybody knows you're cheating. So they don't play with you, and therefore, even if you're NOT really cheating you lose money.
The way that Bitzino works is that they shuffle the deck using their random seed, then the user shuffles it using theirs. If Bitzino isn't using enough randomness to do their initial shuffle that helps the user cheat, not the site. Suppose they only used 2 bits to do their shuffle. That means they'd only have 4 possible shuffles they could do. It would be easy for the player to find a client seed that took all 4 initial shuffles and turned it into a winning shuffle for them. The most more bits the house uses for their initial shuffle, the harder it is for the user to cheat in that way, and so it's in the user's favour if the house shuffle is insecure not the other way around. |
|
|
|
I think it means that you're trying to spend more than you have available when you add in the network fees. Try spending 0.0001 less. And if that fails, 0.0001 less, etc. I'll have that message be more specific about how much you're short in a future release. After looking at the code, it appears that if that was the reason, it would have told you. I've added debugging to the code so future releases will put the reason for the failure in the log at least. One of the reasons for the message you're seeing is that transactions can't be bigger than 100kB in size. It seems unlikely that that is the problem unless you have hundreds of tiny outputs in your wallet from farming a faucet or something. If you're willing to help me figure out what's going on, PM me and I'll see what I can do. |
|
|
|
I tried to post a comment, but it didn't show up. Maybe it's waiting for moderation, I'm not sure: Nice write-up. I have a few comments: > Meet CLAM, a new cryptocurrency It's not all that new. It has been around since May 2014. > which has been steadily rising ever since it was lauched That's not really true. It only started rising in December. Before that the price was steadily falling, pretty much. > As we can conclude from the above chart, CLAM’s market cap is displaying uninterruptible > flux of investments since the day it entered trading. It’s market cap, which initiated from a > mere $816,447, today has peaked to over $1 million — in just over a month Well, again no. That sudden increase from $0 to $816k indicates the day that coinmarketcap started tracking the data. I have been trying to get them to include the historical data in their chart, even providing the data for them to use, but so far I've had no luck: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.msg10379165#msg10379165> something that reminded us of NXT network CLAM is actually a distant descendant of Bitcoin (via Litecoin, Peercoin, Blackcoin, and probably more). NXT is its own thing, unrelated to Bitcoin, although it is proof-of-stake which may be why it reminded you of CLAM. > small exchanges, which include Poloniex, Yacuna and most notable Cryptsy While Cryptsy is the biggest exchange listing CLAM, almost all the trading happens on Poloniex. Probably because they were the first to add a CLAM/BTC market. If I may be so rude as to include a little ad, Just-Dice.com started accepting CLAM when the price started shooting upwards in December. CLAM is the only currency Just-Dice accepts. The site stakes the CLAMs it holds on users' behalf and distributes the staking profits between them (after taking a cut, of course!) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
everytime update new wallet 
