Funny thing about Poisson Processes: Every day you don't stake, you still have 100,000 days to go.
Here's a fun thing: Pick a random point in time, then: A) the average amount of time from that point to the next CLAM block is 1 minute B) the average amount of time from that point to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute Wouldn't you expect A + B = C? Yet A, B, and C are all 1 minute. I don't believe that's a valid equation for the problem. The above is the kind of math politicians use...  If X is the time of the block picked. A is the time of the next block B is the time of the previous block C is the average block time. Then (1+( ( ((X+A) + (X-B)) /2) - X)) = C should give you C as the average block time. EDIT: Even better if your already doing the time offset math. (A+B) / 2 = C |
|
|
|
|
I like a lot of them. Keep adding and re-polling. Eventually come up with the top 2-3 and set a final vote. But so far a lot of good ideas...
|
|
|
|
|
To bad you couldn't vote yay/nay on each name. I like a few and others not so much. Not opposed to any at this point. I didn't care for COG(s) at first but that one's kind of growing on me.
|
|
|
|
That clamour stuff was just a scam to shut up the people who wanted end digging?
When need 90% of votes to make any changes that clamour stuff has really no meaning.
Is hard enough get over 50% to care, but over 90% of votes they get only in North Korea and places like that.
This is the first I've heard of 90% support being needed. Incidentally here's the support for each petition over the last 10,000 blocks: $ clamd getsupport { "threshold" : 0, "window" : 10000, "endblock" : 805025, "startblock" : 795026, "support" : { "0000cb61" : 195, "02fde4a4" : 499, "066b223d" : 69, "26dfbf81" : 38, "5afa074c" : 3807, "694c26a6" : 413, "7a69a853" : 1664, "c9328886" : 46, "deaddea1" : 23, "e2ef93da" : 44, "ea06c089" : 1713, "eff96b06" : 26, "ff839af9" : 2261 } } "5afa074c" (stop digging) has the most support, at 38.07% So what is the % need for change anything? Technically you would need greater then 50%. But as smooth points out, to make sure you have a smooth transition you would need to make sure you have more then a slight margin. 55%, 60% 70%, but no where near the 90%. You need enough of a cushion so that if you made the change, you would have greater then 50% staking power to keep moving your chain ahead. |
|
|
|
Not a fan of Incognito mainly because of the fact that it's been used. Plus I think Cogs just sounds better...like an actual unit of payment. What sounds more natural, "I sent you a hundred Cogs" or "I sent you a hundred Incognitos?" The term incognito could still be part of the promotion/marketing even if the name is Cogs.
My vote is Cogs for name, XCG for ticker.
i am also a huge fan of COGS with the XCG ticker. it sounds really good, and could mean multiple things. maybe a poll in the thread is in order, i cant imagine COGS losing to any other name mentioned though.
I'll third that. It's growing on me. |
|
|
|
That clamour stuff was just a scam to shut up the people who wanted end digging?
When need 90% of votes to make any changes that clamour stuff has really no meaning.
Is hard enough get over 50% to care, but over 90% of votes they get only in North Korea and places like that.
Where did you get the 90% number from? I was under the impression it was 50.1%. + one programmer to make the changes. |
|
|
|
LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES, that's my job and your job. Maybe I'm lying, but it's not a lie that CLAMS has a value of +2.5 M$ ?¿!  Think about it a moment please, and look what has CLAMS so special to have a value of 2.5M$... Just telling some lies, and some thruths, who knows...  I know... It's so cheap.... Should be 20M at a minimum  Now who's full of it. |
|
|
|
First of all Happy New Years everyone! I am back working on my faucets, but I am having trouble compiling the unix wallet. I cloned the source from https://github.com/cannabiscoindev/cannabiscoin420and ran This is the last error it gave. checkpoints.cpp:58:97: error: âunit256â was not declared in this scope
( 1121000, unit256("0x000000012b18631c9d5d90e3c5a32655f63ae1100ff8cafbde184521deba0960"))
^
checkpoints.cpp:59:97: error: âunit256â was not declared in this scope
( 1135050, unit256("0x000000014d3dfb1e1a6cfa86d00baf64acd273da8536badc9aaf4f090a9b77af"))
^
make: *** [obj/checkpoints.o] Error 1
Any help would be appreciated. Back up 6 posts |
|
|
|
Can someone send to my wallet: MNMZNXEezYsZchwbTd9wgP1bzSdVjTtb1Z so I can confirm that everything is working?
Sent, See if you got it. Transaction ID 0589643a975215e5dc33fb283d57f2a2edfa78b57433fce7c808c07da697c03f |
|
|
|
But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).
It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice. 18.7% of all shares. No, you have that backwards. it's 36.65% of the whole Just-Dice weight. 50% of the Just-Dice weight didn't cast a vote. So it's around 73% of the actively voting weight. ie. 3 out of 4 of the weight that voted for anything voted to stop digging. To see this, check https://just-dice.com/misc/clamour_weights.txt - here's a recent version with the numbers made more readable, and with non-5afa votes deleted:
559,190.49019643 49.04% of the Just-Dice.com bankroll abstains from supporting any petition
0.01502096 5afa074c e2ef93da ea06c089 ff839af9
1,090.49167022 02fde4a4 066b223d 5afa074c 7a69a853 ea06c089 eff96b06 ff839af9
3,808.15882920 5afa074c ea06c089 ff839af9
8,657.26219872 5afa074c ff839af9
10,124.50477201 5afa074c 7a69a853 ff839af9
17,614.46605075 5afa074c ea06c089
34,914.56979870 02fde4a4 5afa074c ea06c089 ff839af9
47,721.12550031 5afa074c 7a69a853
131,975.98013010 5afa074c 7a69a853 ea06c089 ff839af9
164,747.32557619 5afa074c
560k didn't vote, representing ~50% of the total 1090 + 3808 + 8657 + 10124 + 17614 + 34914 + 47721 + 131975 + 164747 = 421k votes for 5afa, representing ~37% of the total. Ahh, I was looking at this, and assumed the top percentages equaled 100%, They're actually more then 100% because you can vote for multiple Clamour's. At one time, did this display show the combined votes, IE such that the top part did equal 100% of the votes? Maybe I'm dreaming... # 5afa074c has the support of 37.20% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/5afa074c# ff839af9 has the support of 28.28% of the Just-Dice bankroll : https://gist.github.com/Kefkius/88e2a1a5c965f4be83e9# ea06c089 has the support of 20.39% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/ea06c089# 7a69a853 has the support of 18.79% of the Just-Dice bankroll # 02fde4a4 has the support of 5.52% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/02fde4a4# 0000cb61 has the support of 1.63% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/0000cb61# 066b223d has the support of 1.18% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/066b223d# e2ef93da has the support of 0.68% of the Just-Dice bankroll # 694c26a6 has the support of 0.49% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/694c26a6# c9328886 has the support of 0.49% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/c9328886# eff96b06 has the support of 0.15% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/eff96b06# deaddea1 has the support of 0.10% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/deaddea1 55401113072445 48.59% of the Just-Dice.com bankroll abstains from supporting any petition |
|
|
|
But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).
It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice. 18.7% of all shares. |
|
|
|
What cities would you prefer the first maryj atm's to be placed?
Whats your target state? Colorado? The I would guess Denver, and maybe Boulder, Colorado Springs? |
|
|
|
Crazy Idea Time.
We're trying to address a few problems. Notably the vulnerability to large dig's, and the desire to keep digging alive. Also this would encourage people to always be on the look out for new clams. Maybe even get more folks to run the wallet locally.
What if we could somehow seed new clams onto the chain at some interval (Weekly) and ties them to BTC,LTC, and Doge addresses that have been used recently (last 2 months?) Then only allow digs from block that are so new (Last 14,400 blocks or 10 Days.).
The idea being there are new opportunities every week to claim clams. And if you have an Active BTC, LTC or Doge wallet you may have clams. But you only have 10 days to claim your clams. We could decide how many should be distributed, and start off fairly large and shrink the seeding based on how many are actually claimed.
Since you can only dig from the last X (14,400) that would lock up the original claims in the first blocks. Based on the selection of the addresses anyone might get new clams. The time limit will keep BIG users from accumulating to many free clams.
Just throwing it out there, I'm sure this would not be an easy thing to do technically, But, before we even look at that, does this even have merit? Maybe I missed something?
OK, Maybe I injected to much of my own ideas. Would a new digging system, that would eliminate the existing distribution, and include newer crypto folks make any sense? If you keep some type of digging that might satisfy the Purists. If you eliminate the possible Large cache of clams being claimed by one person, that's what some want. |
|
|
|
What if we could somehow seed new clams onto the chain at some interval (Weekly) and ties them to BTC,LTC, and Doge addresses that have been used recently (last 2 months?) Then only allow digs from block that are so new (Last 14,400 blocks or 10 Days.).
We absolutely could do this, technically speaking. But I think it's a bad idea. The original distribution kind of worked, because nobody was expecting it, and so nobody could prepare for it by seeding thousands of BTC addresses with just enough to qualify for free CLAMs. OK, some will say that the devs did exactly that. Maybe they did. That's not the point. The point is that if you tell people that from now on they can get 4.6 CLAMs for every BTC address that contains more than 0.0001 BTC, there is nothing to stop them making thousands of such addresses. For $40 you can make 1000 of them. Then all you need to do is wait a week and claim your 4600 CLAMs, worth over 100 times what you spent on BTC to create them. tldr: Distributing based on the number of addresses you own only works if you don't announce it before you start counting addresses. Otherwise people can (and will) abuse it mercilessly. Ah, that's not exactly how I would envision it. I would say look at the BTC block chain as an example, and pick x number of addresses that had transactions at random. Then seed those addresses. Not all addresses, just a random set. So it would kind of be like the lottery, with with a time limit for claiming your prize. This would also allow any new people to maybe get clams. No guarantee. Just the chance. Check every Monday for a new chance. or every day, or once a month. Or seed each block with an address, make it like a BTC block reward, Then throttle it back as it approaches the desired supply. |
|
|
|
|
Crazy Idea Time.
We're trying to address a few problems. Notably the vulnerability to large dig's, and the desire to keep digging alive. Also this would encourage people to always be on the look out for new clams. Maybe even get more folks to run the wallet locally.
What if we could somehow seed new clams onto the chain at some interval (Weekly) and ties them to BTC,LTC, and Doge addresses that have been used recently (last 2 months?) Then only allow digs from block that are so new (Last 14,400 blocks or 10 Days.).
The idea being there are new opportunities every week to claim clams. And if you have an Active BTC, LTC or Doge wallet you may have clams. But you only have 10 days to claim your clams. We could decide how many should be distributed, and start off fairly large and shrink the seeding based on how many are actually claimed.
Since you can only dig from the last X (14,400) that would lock up the original claims in the first blocks. Based on the selection of the addresses anyone might get new clams. The time limit will keep BIG users from accumulating to many free clams.
Just throwing it out there, I'm sure this would not be an easy thing to do technically, But, before we even look at that, does this even have merit? Maybe I missed something?
|
|
|
|
I would argue that most clams are being bought by people already in clam and not a whole new group.
I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of interest drawn to CLAM when it's regularly in the top three traded coins by volume at poloniex. The recent volatility is something day traders seem to love. Agreed about the Day traders, but they don't really care about the coin at all, just that it goes up and down. To stop digging, is about the same as bitcoin saying, we're going to end the block rewards, there are enough bitcoins out there and the miners are just dumping them and lowering the price.
Bitcoin says something like that every 4 years only instead of stopping block rewards they halve them. Bitcoin needs block rewards because without them almost nobody would run mining hardware. Without block rewards the network would be easy to attack. Digging doesn't benefit CLAM's security at all, and in fact is a threat to security if a big enough cache of undug CLAMs is dug by a single entity. That was a poor analogy on my part. The point was, Bitcoin is not going to change their initial distribution by cutting block rewards, forgetting network security. And yes I have a nice little cache of clams.
I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs. To ME... It would taint clams, and make me feel a little dirty... Ever had tainted clams.... I'm willing to roll with the punches of a big dig, but maybe we "should" be looking at the security issue. Allow up to X% of the current active supply to be dug within Y time. I don't think we should decrease the initial distribution, or stop digging completely. |
|
|
|
In fairness, you can't make both arguments.
The digs can't, on one hand, be steadily declining and barely anyone has any to claim.
And, on the other hand, be an existential threat or "cloud" hanging over the network.
The argument I am making is the digger who is an avg BTC/LTC/Doge holder who happens to hear about CLAM for the first time is becoming less and less common. The undug CLAMs are increasingly in large undiscovered or lost caches of keys - controlled by individuals (like people who ran services, casinos, exchanges, bots, etc.). And people don't point out enough (that I've seen anyway) that lost coins sit in this large cloud as well, yet we can never know how many have been lost to the ages. Every time a digger shows up as large as curious (or heaven forbid, larger), we will all pull out these charts showing how huge this undug supply is and remind us of this problem. I think a lot of people who are thinking about the future diggers like to think of it as a great outreach of CLAM. But I think avg people joining CLAM are not new diggers, but buyers. People who have been evangelized not by the initial distribution, but what the coin and community offer today. Your assuming there are large caches of Keys. And your assuming the regular users are now non-existent. Nobody knows, so you could flip your statements around and be just as correct. I would agree that more people joining clam are buying and not digging, but I would argue that most clams are being bought by people already in clam and not a whole new group. The initial distribution of clams was to holders of BTC, LTC and Doge. To stop digging, is about the same as bitcoin saying, we're going to end the block rewards, there are enough bitcoins out there and the miners are just dumping them and lowering the price. And yes I have a nice little cache of clams. |
|
|
|
|
Any chance you can add the Clamour info to the OP, and/or website.
|
|
|
|
Is there an API to retrieve the current active supply? This has become an issue for coinmarketcap. Please reply there: Looks like there is also a problem with the active supply of CLAMs I wonder how often they update the active supply. They show 1,079K and there is currently 1,460K. Digger just finished digging in the last few days. So they are off ~400K. Which is quite a bit with such a low starting point.
Where do you get 1460K number? The explorer used to have the number of claimed clams, but now I can't find it. getinfo shows "moneysupply" : 15418603.13048927, "digsupply" : 818675.02325388, "stakesupply" : 644201.72641731, "activesupply" : 1462876.74967119, I gave that answer on the coinmarketcap thread. But he doesn't run wallets, he needs to get the info from an web API. Ah, I don't know of any, but presstab runs an explorer for clams. http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/index.php He might have something already in place there. |
|
|
|
Is there an API to retrieve the current active supply? This has become an issue for coinmarketcap. Please reply there: Looks like there is also a problem with the active supply of CLAMs I wonder how often they update the active supply. They show 1,079K and there is currently 1,460K. Digger just finished digging in the last few days. So they are off ~400K. Which is quite a bit with such a low starting point.
Where do you get 1460K number? The explorer used to have the number of claimed clams, but now I can't find it. getinfo shows "moneysupply" : 15418603.13048927, "digsupply" : 818675.02325388, "stakesupply" : 644201.72641731, "activesupply" : 1462876.74967119, |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
