This argument is false because it assumes that everyone stakes all the time. Smaller holders aren't necessarily going to stake because it isn't worth the trouble. Or they will stake in a few (or as we see now, one) large pools which catastrophically centralizes the network, and transfers (likely further concentrates in practice) wealth to the pool operator via fees.

People who are actively using the coin in a transactional manner (to the extent such a rumored mythical creature actually exists) also do not stake because the network rules don't allow it.


It does bear a lot of resemblance to USD. Some are able to invest and keep up with inflation but others are not. The groups largely mirror the ones described above.


It likely does, for exactly the reason you state: Staying still is better than falling behind.

What this tells you is that the current situation where the most on the stake is on Just-Dice is completely broken. Just-Dice can effectively wipe out anyone's CLAMs (not just pre-dig) by refusing to stake on top of any blocks that move those coins. You might as well just make the whole damn thing a book entry on a Just-Dice database and dispense with the presence that there is a decentralized crypto.

Which to me is all the more reason to let the supply continue to grow so maybe, someday, there will be more coins in existence than just what people choose to invest in the JD bankroll. Granted that doesn't appear to be happening with the current digger but it at least could happen if the distribution process continues in the future.

Yes that is correct. Of course, you can use whatever distribution method you want for a new coin. I just suggested that mirroring the existing distribution of CLAM is superior to forking the network in an uncontrolled manner where transactions will confirm on one chain or both, causing chaos.


Maybe that is the outcome, in which case so be it. Talk is cheap and if nobody really (as in putting money behind it) values the ideas on which CLAM is founded after all, then it will indeed go to zero. At the same time, perhaps there is some demand for a coin that is is distributed to holders of three widely held cryptos and not just the roughly 3% of holders of those coins who have dug CLAMs until now and that happens to be used on one well-known dice site, and in that case the original CLAM won't go to zero. I don't think we can really just make up the answer without actually doing the experiment.

Pretty close to this:

I think tag lines and such are distinct from a logo.

Try connecting the horizontal white lines so the entire thing is horizontal yin-yang circle intersected by a diagonal figure-eight.

This makes the whole thing very abstract (good imo; see successful logo examples above), but the æ concept may still be recognizable if somewhat more subtle.

AdamWhite is MIA for >1 week but TheDasher is last active November 12.

The way to make if fair between current and future participants is by not making changes the the fundamental economic structure at all. That creates an equivalence between people who are involved now and people who are involved in the future in that neither get to vote. This in turn avoids future participants feeling disadvantaged (and thus discouraged from participating) because they weren't around when important economic decisions are made. It also avoids people not wanting to invest as small participants because they risk getting screwed over by larger participants voting their own interests.

As you point out, you can't make it fair by allowing both current and future participants to vote, so you make it fair by allowing neither to vote.

The sensible way to address not liking something about the fundamental economic design a coin is to create a new coin. Use the claim method to preserve the existing distribution if you think the existing distribution is a good starting point. That has the same economic effect as forking the chain except that you avoid having transactions that confirm on either or both chains, leading to chaos.

This, BTW, includes the idea of whether changes can be made by voting. If you want a coin where the design states that coin holders vote by balance on future changes then create one, but put that in the design from the start, so again everyone is entering on equal terms.

If you create a new wallet, this is already done. The issue is that there is no creation date as part of seed words, so when you restore using seed words it has to scan the entire chain, starting from the genesis block. Probably at some point in the future when seed words are improved (especially with better error detection and correction) some sort of date indicator can be added.

As for performance and efficiency (including storage space) overall, it is important to recognize that the database right now is close to the first implementation and the main goal was to get it to work (not quite the first since NoodleDoodle did optimize some of it). Further optimizations and improvements are good goals for the future.

Actually I completely misremembered not only the number but the context of it. It was 2.5ms/tx average according to NoodleDoodle on a i7-2600. I originally thought it was single threaded which would yield 1600/sec not 1400, but now I'm not sure how that was measured since multithreaded verification was added at some point, though not sure if it is signatures or PoW. I guess signatures since most syncing PoW uses the precomputed hashes now anyway.

We could look into the code more carefully here to see how it is being done, but all of these numbers agree that "computationally efficient" doesn't make sense to raise an issue. And of course both your numbers and NoodleDoodle's numbers are aging to old midrange desktop CPUs. You would run into huge problems with storage, bandwidth, centralization, etc. long before computational cost because a bottleneck. That's true for all blockchains so I just don't understand the original statement except as a misunderstanding.

I looked back and I don't see anything egregious about that change. In the lottery era the rewards were usually 0.1 per block but occasionally higher. When the change to a flat 1/block was made, the claim from SuperClam was that the average under the lottery was very close to that. I did not mathematically test this claim but roughly speaking it doesn't look incredibly far off to me.

Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.

In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.

If someone has different information I'm interested in hearing it.

The contribution is certainly appreciated. My comments were intended to suggest directions to explore, not to insult or discourage. Hopefully that comes across.

1. The "Private Secure Untraceable" is a rip off of Monero (albeit in a different order). I don't like that. Also, too much descriptive content for a logo, even an extended version with the name (most logos can be used with or without the name). Take look at those successful logos above. How many of them have descriptive content as part of the logo itself? Zero.

2. The 'a' part of the logo bothers me. I doesn't look like an 'a' and the symmetry is poor. Again look at the logos above. A few have broken symmetry, such as Brooks Brothers, but it is very carefully done to remain subtle. The broken symmetry here is very jarring to me, in addition to just not looking like an 'a'. Either go completely abstract shape-wise (Rolex, Mercedes Benz, etc.) or stay closer to the literal letters presented in a stylized manner (Rolls Royce). Avoid the middle.

3. I'm still not sold on the circle. I suspect the concept could be remolded into a more distinctive shape such a diamond. EDIT: I do think the yin-yang theme works, possibly (though not sure of the actual purpose of the symbolism here really). If so then maybe the circle should stay.


This is what I said earlier. No text will be useful at 16px. At that size you working with shape and color.

I'm honestly not sure.

There are criticisms about the chain being larger than Bitcoin. That's one thing, maybe an issue in practice, maybe not, but not really the same question as "computationally efficient".

There have also been criticisms of the PoW being too slow. This was a bigger concern before it got optimized and verifying a PoW took a second or something. But now at 20 ms, I don't really see this as disastrous. Even if it is, it could easily be replaced, and doesn't constitute a scaling issue (PoW cost doesn't go up as usage increases, in fact it decreases per-tx).

I'm not really sure where a criticism of the protocol itself being too computationally inefficient would come from. The signature verification is based on DJB's elliptic curve methods that are designed to be very efficient. We can verify something like 1400 signatures/sec on CPUs that are a couple of generations out of date. And that isn't even fully optimized.

So who knows. Sometimes memes based on a tiny bit of information, possibly taken out of context or misinterpreted, just get out there and take on a life of their own, making them very hard to ever fully kill off.

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

Monero House has donated 1000m to continuing MoneroMooo's excellent work on Monero core development.

Thanks to the late Marquess of Arda whose estate made this donation possible.

The Monero House endowment will continue its mission to provide funding for worthy Monero projects. Any additional donations and serious funding requests are always welcome.

It was probably for the other coin he's working on, which he has said several times does not mean he is abandoning this coin. He's said that he doing both.

I'm not sure why he felt he needed to come back to THIS thread and air some disagreement he has with Wolf about the other coin though.

A huge portion of the fiat price drops are due to Bitcoin and the whole universe dropping with speculative money either evaporating altogether due to large BTC (and to a lesser extent LTC) holdings being worth less, or just leaving the sector as people go chase after big gains in real estate or tech stocks or whatever else is "hot" now.

I don't really see how either coin does well when compared with early 2014. I'd call it a tie by double default (both having done terribly).

Okay that means mostly shape and color though, and especially shape (since good logos seem to cluster around a limited range of near-blue or near-red colors, or, less frequently, some sort of multicolor/rainbow theme).

So I'd argue that round is very generic since a hundreds of coins have done that. Something based on the square logo, or a variation of it, is more distinctive.

That last one from bangomatic is the best of the new crop by that reasoning, I think. The rest are pretty bad -- generic shapes and weak use of color.

No one has explained to me why smaller sizes like 16x16 are even needed at all. I'm not sure any of the proposed replacements would be legible at those tiny sizes either.