Can you explain this? I don't understand how the depth of market (it's not deep) is in any way related to the fact that it is a proof of stake coin.

The problem as I see it is that there is only one widely used service which accepts CLAM and so most of the CLAM is currently there. Given the choice between letting your coins sit idle on an exchange and actively working for you on Just-Dice most people pick the latter. Would that be any different if the coin was proof of work instead?

Also, note that if you put a decent buy order on Poloniex it really doesn't take long for someone to see it, deposit CLAMs, and dump into it. It's not like it's hard to buy CLAMs, you just have to be willing to place a reasonable buy order and wait a while.

I can generate the same file locally and publish hashes. They should match yours:

$ clamd dumpbootstrap /tmp 285000
$ for i in md5sum sha1sum sha256sum; do echo $i $($i /tmp/bootstrap.dat); done
md5sum 7509afde3ded54ee6807ed56e0b03346 /tmp/bootstrap.dat
sha1sum ff9757107325832a4b7d0906dce982d20c43ff05 /tmp/bootstrap.dat
sha256sum 8b2d0961031252cf68885a94815e2eb2d8f5d61692635626f3bd07077cff8dfc /tmp/bootstrap.dat
$

Do they?

I think it his non-troll username (jvwvu) backwards, where j and v are his initials and wvu is his employer.

https://onename.io/jvwvu

If neither of those dodgy geezers pay, I'll pay.

Is it worth giving some idea of who the banner is meant to attract? Should it emphasize the amazing returns you can get from funding the bankroll? Or is it to bring in more players? Should it be cute, businesslike, look like a traditional casino ad, or what?

I think a lot of people work better when given some kind of direction like that.

Poloniex doesn't stake the coins on deposit with them.

For example, I'm pretty sure this is a Poloniex deposit address, and as you can see it has never staked a block despite having a huge balance for a reasonably long time.

However, Poloniex *did* hold BTC, LTC, and DOGE on the snapshot date, and so were able to 'dig' a fair few free CLAMs. It is those free CLAMs that Poloniex gave back to their users and that CLAM's OP is referring to.

I use poloniex and didn't have any trouble with them. I didn't hear about them "becoming scam", but why would I...

For a list of exchanges, see the first post in the CLAM thread - they keep it up to date, but currently it says:

It would be useful if the form I was using knew that, and would somehow show me rather than giving me the impression I could use your site to exchange significant amounts of currency. I wouldn't have found out that you don't even support exchanging a single BTC for CLAM until I had deposited my BTC and tried to exchange it.


Then the problem still seems to be there. You won't let me exchange 5000 BTC, but you'll let me exchange 0.3 BTC 20000 times? What's the difference? At some point you need to take your market depth into account. Why not just present your market data to the user and let them buy as much as they like?


The error message I see is that I don't have enough funds. I need to make a deposit to see the message about the limit - but until I do, I don't know the limit, so I don't know how much to deposit. Easily fixed though - just make a note that you only allow exchanges up to 0.3 BTC.


I'm used to exchanges looking like this, so you can pick your price according to the depth you want:



Click on the price you want, and the price, volume, etc. is filled in for you.


Fair enough. I guess I was looking at it wrong. If I look at it as "not finished, and not intended to compete" then my criticisms are moot.

I seem to be stuck like that now - just like my mother warned me I would.

You don't need the blockchain to import and export wallets.

Run with "-connect=127.0.0.1" to avoid connecting to any peers and you'll save yourself some network traffic.

Thanks for adding the CLAM marketcap to your site.

I have a list of historical moneysupply amounts if you want to go back and add them.

If so, how far apart do you want the samples? Every hour, every block, or what?

Alternatively, you can grab them from the blockchain yourself, like this, to get the supply as of block 100k for example:


'activesupply' is the amount available (it's the sum of dig + stake) and 'moneysupply' is the total theoretically available at that point in time.

I looked at your exchange a couple of days ago, but couldn't figure it out. I couldn't see it mentioned anywhere how many of each currency were available at each price.

Are you sure there are no issues with it? The exchange quoted me a price for a million CLAM, but that many don't even exist.

Usually the more you buy, the higher the price goes, due to 'slippage', market depth, etc. but from what I could see none of that exists on your 'exchange'. Could you explain how that's possible please?

Here's a screenshot of the offer it made me:

You've already told us you don't have the skills required to understand how this stuff works, so what makes you think you're in any way qualified to make such silly statements?

You should pay somebody smarter than you to examine the client code for you, and then you should apologise to the CLAM developers for your rude words.

They accept 100 satoshi bets too, so it's not fair to say it's a high roller venue.

You'll see the usual length losing streaks if you change your client seed too. Their provably fair system is open to abuse by the house if you don't pick your own client seed, but that's true of all sites. The difference here is that they change the server seed every roll, so you need to pick a new unpredictable client seed each roll too, to guarantee fairness.

That's an issue most sites have addressed, fortunejack being the other notable exception.

I mean the initial distribution was finished by block 10,000. If you have more than 10,000 blocks synced, then you have enough to see your coins.


No, you don't need to wait. I expect the wallet you imported doesn't contain any addresses that were funded on the date in May 2014 that the snapshot was taken.


"weight" is a measure of how many CLAMs are currently trying to stake. Outputs don't try to stake if they have staked in the last 510 blocks, or if they have been involved in a transaction in the last 4 hours. I expect one of those two is the case for your coins.

Run "listunspent" to see how many confirmations each output has. Probably by now the problem has resolved itself, since more than 510 blocks have been staked since you posted...

Finally, we saw a LOT of CLAMs dug up today - mostly from what appears to be some kind of Litecoin service. Here's a chart showing the total amount dug up over time. Note the big jump when JD launched around 8th December, and the almost-as-big jump today:

A few reasons:

It's one of the longest running sites and has a good reputation

They were one of the first provably fair sites

I've had really good experiences with their customer support

The games are very clear and simple

The max bets are pretty high

The free distribution happened back in June or something. It's still available for claiming, and always will be.

You won't see all your free CLAM until you have synced the first 10k blocks.

It was around 65k BTC at one point (see this chart, and, if you're wondering why it suddenly drops to zero, this one, to which I moved the coins after a mishap involving me 'forgetting' the cold wallet in a hotel room and checking out...), and "Bitdice" is something else.

Interestingly I've had 4 different people approach me in the last 24 hours asking for their JD BTC balance back. Until yesterday it had slowed to around one per week.

I don't know if the crash in BTC price has caused them to check their JD account and notice that it no longer deals in BTC or what. Only 48 people left to go now with outstanding balances of 1 BTC or more!

I selected CLAM for JD in part because of its low market cap. I don't want to be responsible for millions of dollars of cryptocurrency. The fact that the market is too shallow to support even 10's of BTC of volume without shifting drastically is a good thing from my point of view.

The complaints I see in the chat about the relatively small maximum bet size now, I see as a good thing:

  (152350) <JimC> I remember the good 'ol days when max profit + $100,000+
  (967107) <eustice> lol this is like dollar scratch tickets

We had quite a few people losing CLAMs on Just-Dice yesterday. I figure that when players buy CLAMs then lose them, they're not able to sell them back, resulting in a net increase in demand.

The lost CLAMs pass to the crowd-sourced Just-Dice bankroll, and tend to stay there. The people funding the bankroll know a good deal when they see it, and tend not to cash out their profits.

Edit: I wonder if there's any correlation between JD profits and CLAM price. I remember the drop to 0.003x happened after eustice won (around Christmas) and dumped ~10k on the market (on Dec 29th):





It seems to me that the biggest candles on the Poloniex chart correspond to the biggest wins and losses on the JD profit chart. Interesting.


I don't know if anyone ever really worked it out. It's a trade-off between:

* if your stacks are too big they'll stake more often, but the whole stack has to sit idle for 510 blocks each time it stakes

* if your stacks are too small, it becomes CPU-expensive for the wallet to scan them all for staking chances, and it becomes size (and thus cost) expensive to ever move the CLAMs anywhere else (since you pay transaction fees based on the size of the transaction, and moving thousands of tiny outputs makes for big transactions)

So I figure the optimal size depends on your CPU speed, and on how often you plan to move your CLAMs around.

Edit: oh, and the reason I came to this thread today in the first place!

It's been a while since I posted a network difficulty chart:

That's a funny thing to say about it - it's nothing like a real casino, and doesn't try to be. It has very minimal graphics, no sound, no flashing lights. Most other 'casino' sites try to mimic the casino experience to some degree but not bitzino.

I recommend the site, but not because it's "just like a real casino".