So we have two main camps here. Exaggerating the positions, we have:
Camp A: wants to leave everything how it is so it's fair for future diggers. It's not OK to cancel their free CLAMs. The stakeholders knew massive digging was a risk and accepted it. They hoped it wouldn't happen but it did. Suck it up.
Camp B: bought into CLAM and saw the price drop. To fix this, let's ban digging. Then the price can recover and we can all get rich.
Sure there are shades of grey between these extremes, involving halvenings and such like, but let's ignore those for now.
You're proposing a third camp:
Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?
Anyone who wants digging to stop switches to doogcoin. Presumably JD switches to doogcoin too. I guess most CLAM holders dump their CLAM to buy more doogcoin. CLAM price goes to 0, doogcoin price goes to the moon. Is that the correct outcome? Is that what you're proposing?
What do people think of this "Camp C" option?
It seems like would satisfy both Camp A (since we're not changing the rules of CLAM, like they want) and Camp B (since it gives them a way of holding their value without being diluted by future diggers). Did I miss anything?
I like the camp C option, just needs a different name. Doog is to close to Doge.  Would the rest of the coins parameters stay the same. like block times, staking rates etc... |
|
|
|
But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving. If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop.
People run Bitcoin wallets, LTC and ect ect. I'm sure JD isn't going to turn the wallets off and I'm sure other people would continue to run a wallet if they were a part of that ecosystem. These are 2 different networks. BTC, LTC etc are POW (Proof of Work) networks, They rely on miners to keep the network moving/safe. Clams is POS (Proof of stake) and uses the wallets, instead of miners, to keep the network moving/safe. I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams. and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase. In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.
Well of course the % will go down on massively inflated stuff with just a tiny dash of time, but CLAM can't write checks its ass can't cash forever... "There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins, so they are special"x- "There is only so much silver/gold/ect in the ground that can be reached economically" so on and so forth. With CLAM it's like "Ya basically one magic internet bean comes into the economy for nothing every minute... wana invest?" Well, The beans are not "coming into the economy for nothing", they are payments to the client's (Wallets, daemons) for keeping the network running. Nothing is free. Bitcoin has block rewards as payments, the miners also get all fees in the block they mine. The thought with bitcoin is as the actual block reward decreases, the fees will increase somewhat, and it will still be economical to mine. But you do bring up a good point, "are staking rewards in line with what the coin wants to achieve?". So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option. As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.
December of last year the digs increased and the stake rewards value increased as well. We could have that 100 fold if a real service ever started diddling with CLAM (Microsoft, Apple, Bank of America ect.) I'm not sure what your trying to say here. If your trying to say Microsoft, Apple or BoA would get involved with Clams. Any "BIG" company that wanted to get involved with crypto-currencies, would simply create their own. They wouldn't invest in a coin they didn't control. Do you think IBM wants to worry about some changes a bunch of yahoo's (Self included) from the internet want to make? If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply. If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.
Why couldn't that be done none with consensus now? I'm sure it could. But I'm not suggesting it. I personally don't mind the 1 clam reward. And I've seen no indication it hinders the price of clams. But that could be a topic of discussion. |
|
|
|
After a day of thinking and spending the afternoon in the William J. Clinton Presidential Center I think I have an idea that will make everyone equally unhappy that will be the best for CLAM.
Perhaps we could do a halfing for both the digs and the stakes at the same % for each with both of them ending eventually in x years (?)
Y'alls big concerns are digs until the digs stop (end in sight) - Addressed
My big concerns are never ending staking (no end in sight) (reference my Dogecoin freak out if you so wish) - Addressed
How do people on both sides of the fence feel about that?
The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply 1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM. You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks? Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing? Do you take your lunch to work or ride the bus? I think he wears shorts...  But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving. If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop. I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams. and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase. In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase. So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option. As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases. If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply. If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams. |
|
|
|
I also don't think CC and Xploited should just make changes without a vote. I think changes for the security/integrity of the coin should be made without a major consultation. Any change that impacts the core philosophy of the coin should be discussed, and if needed put up for a vote. So that's "we should vote", "we should not vote", and then "we should vote". I really can't tell what you're getting at here. That's a we should have voting, we should not vote on "banning digging", and we should have voting. In real life the masses don't vote for everything. There are people we elect to do most of the voting. and we hope they will vote for there constituents. Some things are beyond there capability and you have a general vote of the masses. I'm suggesting that our elected officials (we elected them by buying clams) decide if a vote should be held, and how it should be done. They can ask for suggestions and listen to replies, but ultimately it is up to them. As Dooglas stated we could always just force a vote on this by forking the chain. But I agree that we should try to appease most involved. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty against the idea of making any changes to how the coin works.
I hear you. But the first question that needs answering is "should we have a vote to decide this?" I'm not asking how you would vote, but whether we should vote. Lots of people say "we should leave it how it is", but that's one of the options in the vote. I don't see anyone (with the possible exception of BAC) directly saying "we should overrule what the majority wants and try to force an unpopular rule set on the majority". First we need to be clear about whether this is a democracy, and if it is then we can make a list of the candidates and start voting for them. If it isn't then I guess we carry on as before, and just have xploited and creative change the rules however and whenever they like. I don't see that as a better system to be honest, and I don't think they do either. Although it would be nice if they would chime in and say what they think about how CLAM governance should be working. On just this subject (dig/not dig) I vote for no vote. The whole rational behind a change is a knee-jerk reaction to the price of clams. I also don't think CC and Xploited should just make changes without a vote. I think changes for the security/integrity of the coin should be made without a major consultation. Any change that impacts the core philosophy of the coin should be discussed, and if needed put up for a vote. The coin elders should be bring these things up. Doog, should we add your name to that short list of elders? Lottery -> fixed stake was done for a security issue. Something needed to be done and quick, and was. No fuss no muss.... But lets say they want to change the block time. From 1 minute, to 15 seconds, or 5 minutes. in either case your going to have folks complaining. But if there is a logical reason to do it, then we should have a vote. The result of a vote doesn't necessarily bring about the result that's in the majority's best interest.
While it's true that it is possible for the majority to be wrong about what's best for them, do you have a better idea? Is there any guarantee that doing whatever micalith thinks is best for example is any better than doing what the majority wants? This is where a counsel of coin elders would help. They should review the proposal and decide if a change would impact the core coin values. Not if it's technically possible, but does it make sense for this coin. They don't even have to agree on the change, just that if it was done it wouldn't impact the coin. the rules of this network lends it to being consensus driven
Point of information. The implementation of this peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency dictates that it be consensus-driven; the only practicable leadership in this context is “thought leadership”. You're saying that having a discussion about whether we should do whatever the majority wants or not is pointless, because in a distributed system like CLAM "whatever the majority wants" is exactly what we always do whether we like it or not? If the majority wants to stop digging, they will make a fork where digging is prohibited, and being the majority, their fork will win? While that makes sense in theory, I think for the most part people are too passive to make the change they want to see, and will go along with whatever "the official release" does. Sure they'll bitch and moan if they don't like it ("waaah, CLAM is dying, stop the digger") but won't actually do anything about it. So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?
Point of information. The notion of a plebiscite is irrelevant to a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; there is no central authority to enforce the result. I had to look up "plebiscite". It means "a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal". Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best. If it's at all close, we'll have a lot of blockchain reorgs as the forks compete with each other, and a lot of mess as previously confirmed transactions become unconfirmed as the forks battle for dominance. The point of having a probably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess. If one proposal gets a clear majority of the votes, and everyone sees that that is the case, then "we" can make a new official release implementing that most popular proposal and have a good expectation that the majority will switch to running that code. Obviously we can't enforce that result, but since it is by definition the most popular result, we won't have to. You mentioned that people are to passive to make the change, but then state they could run a custom wallet to register their vote with. Part of the problem I have with the whole "Vote" idea is just that. If just dice make the default "No dig" that will probably win, and the same with making the default "Don't dig". 99% of the folks NOT on Just dice, will just run the same old client they've been using. The very passionate would take the time to download the new wallet. I don't think you would get the results your looking for. I'm not implying your for digging or no-digging, just that your idea would not be a fair vote. Plus your going to have to deal with all of the crying from the losing side. Im pretty sure many of the investors want to get the staking to stop so the price would go up and they could exit.
Staking benefits all holders proportionally. If you have 1% of the CLAM market cap and then everyone's holdings increase by 10% due to staking, then you still hold 1% of the CLAM market cap afterwards and your CLAMs should be worth the same. Each CLAM would be worth 10% less, but you'd have 10% more of them. So I don't think your point about wanting staking to stop is valid. I really hope he meant digging, and not staking. A change to prevent digging is only "to preserve the monetary value of the coin". Unless you can convince me that preventing new people from digging clams is somehow fair. "Sorry, we distributed clams to all wallets, but because you waited to long, you lose out."
So that's a vote against preventing digging. Are you OK with putting it to the vote and going along with the majority decision? I would prefer not putting it to a vote, I won't cry and complain if it comes to that. I can't say one way or the other how I would feel about the outcome. Slowing digging (IE only allowed 1 dig per day) would preserve the fair distribution model.
I guess you mean 1 dig per day per person? How are we to tell which digs are made by which people? There's only 1 dig allowed per address already, and there's no way of knowing which addresses are owned by which people so I don't see how such a limit would work. Or do you mean to limit it to 1 dig per day globally? The 'digger' has enough addresses to create a 20 year tailback if that's the case. Now I'm going to expose my stupidity. (or maybe brilliance). 1 per day per person. Don't we have all of these dark coins, because normal coins can still be tracked. I though somehow you could figure out someones IP address. So 1 per day per ip address. Someone mentioned staking the clams in order to be able to claim them. I imagine this as the client code would unlock the original clams when they were claimed, and once they staked from their original block they would be normal clams. Just so I'm clear, I hold a fairly large amount of clams and I'm in the red at the current price, but this is more about the coin then the price. If I was worried about the price, I would be in the make a change camp too.
The two camps we're trying to pick between are: a) have a vote and do what the majority decide b) ignore the majority, and if they want to change the rules then try to force them to follow rules they are no longer happy with, as if they couldn't just make their own fork Is there a third camp? Which camp are you in? Wow, "That" is a really loaded poll ... But I would have to say B. I just don't feel making a change to appease the market is the right choice, and it shouldn't even come to a vote. (Can you tell I work for a big company that does this all of the time...) Your assuming the majority wants to make the change. Thus not allowing a vote, means your in favor of the status quo. And then assuming the majority of folks that read and respond to this thread in the next hours/days/weeks, want to vote, how would you announce it so the most people would understand and be able to participate? Also if you go with the blockchain as the vote, you do realize that the coins on the losing side will most likely not stake either. |
|
|
|
I think it is very important to realize that changing the rules along the way is not necessarily compromising the "foundation", so long as it is done for the right reasons, ie as I have stated before, as long as we don't change rules with the purpose of preserving the monetary value of the coin. If we do it to preserve the "fair distribution", then it's ok. Understand, it is not always possible for founders to foresee all possible contingencies from the very beginning. That is why the US constitution had 27 amendments. Did the amendments compromise the constitution? No, because they were enacted in the spirit of preserving and BUILDING upon the the Constitution and what it was trying to accomplish. We have an opportunity now to build upon and improve this coin.
If you disagree, please reason with me. Lets resolve this with logic and not emotions.
A change to prevent digging is only "to preserve the monetary value of the coin". Unless you can convince me that preventing new people from digging clams is somehow fair. "Sorry, we distributed clams to all wallets, but because you waited to long, you lose out." Slowing digging (IE only allowed 1 dig per day) would preserve the fair distribution model. Preventing digging or reducing the claim amount is only fair to those who made the deadline. Just so I'm clear, I hold a fairly large amount of clams and I'm in the red at the current price, but this is more about the coin then the price. If I was worried about the price, I would be in the make a change camp too. |
|
|
|
Strongly advise selling CLAM.
Dooglus is off the fucking deep end and all of this is going to end badly.
The community obviously does not want the dig structure to change, but Dooglus and Company who made horrible trades are pushing this shit like crazy.
It's even at the top of the JD news feed.
Last night I was banned from JD and Deb said she is happy that they are pushing us away because we didn't agree with them... I would strong advise people to start flooding away from these people.
Dooglus is already starting to abuse his power across the board and I imagine this power trip will continue to grow.
I actually agree that the digging should not be changed. But the rest of your post is just to funny. You guys need to get your own thread, or just kiss already, get it over with.... You wouldn't happen to have one of those low buy orders in at poloniex, would ya? |
|
|
|
As a Clam holder I would appreciate ending the digging process. Especially since it has been a while. People who are interested in Alt-coins probably have heard of clams by now. The end of digging could bring more interest and money into the coin.
Is it possible to prevent further digging though? Isn't digging just using a previously unused private key to move coins. So to prevent that we would have to remove the ability to send coins which were initially distributed but have yet to be moved?
Yes, and as a bitcoin holder I would like it if they stopped block rewards. We can stop staking for clams too. The whole point of clams is that they were fairly distributed, just because some have taken longer than others to dig theirs, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. I agree that stopping the digs altogether is not the best solution. What about a halving of the Dig rewards in May 2016 (2 years from the launch date) as indicated in the previous page? We can expand this further that every subsequent halving would be twice the number of years as the previous one. The dig rewards would look like this: May 2014 - 4.6 May 2016 - 2.3 May 2020 - 1.15 May 2028 - 0.575 May 2044 - 0.2875 May 2076 - 0.14375 May 2140 - 0.071875 How about we take your coins and cut them in half next year instead. Save CLAM by leaving it the fuck alone. + Infinity. Messing with specs is a sure way to kill a coin. Clam will come back sooner or later as people gamble and need clam to bet. If an uptrend starts (which it may have already) it's almost self fueling as per definition the clam network of gambling sites will siphon coin from the market and drive price. Agree also.... And don't be to concerned about the price as long as the digger continues. Enjoy the rise, but don't expect it. Once he's done we'll be back to business. |
|
|
|
We know an upper bound on it (the amount of clams deposited in the initial distribution). That may be large, but it's finite and in theory, it was expected to be hit sooner or later. Everyone is fretting about uncertainty and whatnot, if someone digs up all the CLAMS, that removes uncertainty about how many are left to be dug.
I never expected the actual limit to be hit and maybe not even close to it. People don't necessarily keep spent private keys around. But I certainly always expected a hell of a lot more than the current 1/2 million to be dug up. At least a few million if not eventually 10 million or more. I agree with you that the more that are dug up now the fewer will be dug up later. I also think that the market got ahead of itself valuing CLAMs at >1 USD. That would make CLAMs a top 10 coin based on its likely supply and that doesn't make sense for a fork coin with some tweaks (even if the tweaks are generally meritorious) that it is used at exactly one web site two web sites. Supply being dug up in response to price increases is exactly what is supposed to happen with this coin. Anyone who claims otherwise didn't understand the designEDIT: Right after I posted, directbet announced support, so two web sites now! I think CLAM deserve to be at least in the TOP 25. Honest developers, great betting and casino services, investors liking it for the staking returns... It could find its own nice niche. I mean, 2 million $ marketcap to be in the top 25 actually ? It's really nothing. I agree with that but not top 10, yet. And the only way it could stay out of the top ten with the higher value is if you assume not many more coins would be dug up. The digger has shown that false and I doubt he'll be the last one. At the current price with 5 million dug up that's a 3.5 million market cap which seems fair to me. Just staking alone adds 500k coin per year too. Wo wo wo take it easy, hows that staking alone adds 500k coins per year? 1 minute block time, with 1 clam per staked block. 1440 minutes/clams per day. 1440 X 365 days a year = 525,600 I'm just saying..... |
|
|
|
pool.verters.comDon't deceive users! Return the correct calculation % of the block what was 3 months ago! The percent has to be twice more!
Really users of your pool aren't able to consider?
 LMAO, take Shares divide by Shares Est to get percentage at per block. Sum(Shares) divide by Sum(Shares Est) to get Percentage over a period of time. What so hard? Do you also do average of averages? I think he's saying the expected shares of the last 4 blocks found was 191,174. But the shares estimate on the general screen shows 382,348. The actual numbers from both screen actually match with 365,967. I don't know how to calculate the expected shares, so I have no idea which seems more likely. I think he feels the individual block numbers are more valid. so instead of the main screen displaying 365,967/382,348 = 95.72% it should really be 365,967/191,174 = 191.43% Basically it would take the pool from better then expected (95.72%) to almost 2X worse then expected (191.43%) I had to read this several times to understand what the problem was, and even then could only do it by actually doing the math to see what was wrong... |
|
|
|
Just noticed a weird problem... running 1.4.17 I fired up my old client on a different box and it caught-up to the block chain and processed these fine. I shut that down and started this guy back up and now it's running fine. Any clue what was happening there? This is a new Raspberry Pi daemon, so I've been watching very closely. This was running fine for around 18 hours. 2015-10-30 18:54:35 SetBestChain: new best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:54:35 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2015-10-30 18:54:36 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:54:41 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:54:44 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:54:48 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:54:53 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:54:56 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:54:57 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:55:01 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 prev tx 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d index entry not found
2015-10-30 18:55:01 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d height=708541 trust=95795821283295403912 blocktrust=394802330145311 date=10/30/15 18:54:56
2015-10-30 18:55:01 InvalidChainFound: current best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:55:01 ERROR: SetBestChain() : SetBestChainInner failed
2015-10-30 18:55:01 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
2015-10-30 18:55:01 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-10-30 18:55:05 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:55:13 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:55:30 stake took 1s
2015-10-30 18:55:45 Postponing 1 reconnects
2015-10-30 18:55:45 REORGANIZE
2015-10-30 18:55:45 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 0 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a
2015-10-30 18:55:45 REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d
2015-10-30 18:55:45 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 prev tx 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d index entry not found
2015-10-30 18:55:45 ERROR: Reorganize() : ConnectBlock a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d failed
2015-10-30 18:55:45 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=401a920919215869d558be3528cc43ecc4fa6c614f5cbf75a0dac4a4860fff25 height=708542 trust=95796216491626745705 blocktrust=395208331341793 date=10/30/15 18:55:44
2015-10-30 18:55:45 InvalidChainFound: current best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:55:45 ERROR: SetBestChain() : Reorganize failed
2015-10-30 18:55:45 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
2015-10-30 18:55:45 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-10-30 18:55:46 stake took 1s
2015-10-30 18:56:01 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:56:17 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:56:33 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:56:34 Postponing 2 reconnects
2015-10-30 18:56:34 REORGANIZE
2015-10-30 18:56:34 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 0 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a
2015-10-30 18:56:34 REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d
2015-10-30 18:56:34 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 prev tx 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d index entry not found
2015-10-30 18:56:34 ERROR: Reorganize() : ConnectBlock a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d failed
2015-10-30 18:56:34 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=5811802af96f11fd29e126e55e25682e7e73653d8575d2500e50dc1d55743019 height=708543 trust=95796612106795179040 blocktrust=395615168433335 date=10/30/15 18:56:32
2015-10-30 18:56:34 InvalidChainFound: current best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:56:34 ERROR: SetBestChain() : Reorganize failed
2015-10-30 18:56:34 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
2015-10-30 18:56:34 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-10-30 18:56:35 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:56:43 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:56:49 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:57:06 stake took 1s
2015-10-30 18:57:14 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 mempool Tx prev not found 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d
2015-10-30 18:57:21 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:57:29 Postponing 3 reconnects
2015-10-30 18:57:29 REORGANIZE
2015-10-30 18:57:29 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 0 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a
2015-10-30 18:57:29 REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d
2015-10-30 18:57:29 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 prev tx 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d index entry not found
2015-10-30 18:57:29 ERROR: Reorganize() : ConnectBlock a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d failed
2015-10-30 18:57:29 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=45ea26b6c5e277023f30a7bec65eb5c12065d759bcd0d00d16895c64571cf04f height=708544 trust=95797008129639183109 blocktrust=396022844004069 date=10/30/15 18:57:20
2015-10-30 18:57:29 InvalidChainFound: current best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:57:29 ERROR: SetBestChain() : Reorganize failed
2015-10-30 18:57:29 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
2015-10-30 18:57:29 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-10-30 18:57:37 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:57:53 stake took 0s
2015-10-30 18:57:57 Postponing 4 reconnects
2015-10-30 18:57:57 REORGANIZE
2015-10-30 18:57:57 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 0 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a
2015-10-30 18:57:57 REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a..a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d
2015-10-30 18:57:57 ERROR: FetchInputs() : 2735bdf592b697b34a4ce9533ff0af647342b660da6779dae75bd4d4c43dcb15 prev tx 467a9d7a17de112f1766d53b32ee57f3869c6c2d04d1468870d6f5a2b8345d1d index entry not found
2015-10-30 18:57:57 ERROR: Reorganize() : ConnectBlock a22b8c842f7e4855331f564e686db009fb3e464109bd789f8a8dd490d9fd9b8d failed
2015-10-30 18:57:57 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=be297a55e10d467734b2b1f238aa7c39d1a1e81ee0fb003bf3c558a8e3c9c2b8 height=708545 trust=95797404356636212698 blocktrust=396226997029589 date=10/30/15 18:57:52
2015-10-30 18:57:57 InvalidChainFound: current best=3f5c063a6a5cae2d744656415f8bbf78d3ec0d93bdd90f02d56b08f66cb9438a height=708540 trust=95795426480965258601 blocktrust=394397162270365 date=10/30/15 18:54:24
2015-10-30 18:57:57 ERROR: SetBestChain() : Reorganize failed
2015-10-30 18:57:57 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
2015-10-30 18:57:57 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-10-30 18:58:10 stake took 1s
2015-10-30 18:58:26 stake took 1s
|
|
|
|
|
I thought we had the website set up as a WIKI, but I can't seem to find it.
I just got the wallet setup on a Raspberry Pi and got a stake on it. I wanted to create an install guide to help anyone else trying to do this. The daemon compile is pretty straight forward, but there are a few gotcha's that would be nice to see all in one place...
|
|
|
|
I was fortunate enough to have Just-Dice.com owner dooglus give me a hand in auditing and bug fixing on the site!
Everything should be functioning as normal again. We had to rebuild the database as well as fix a few scripts.
I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen. One bug that I didn't fix is in the way the script determines which address to pay out to. It looks at the first input of the deposit transaction, finds which transaction created that output, and the uses the address of either the 1st or 2nd output of that transaction as the address to repay. There's no comment to explain why such a strange strategy is used, but it will often result in the wrong person being paid out. See https://i.imgur.com/A0BvC0h.png and http://clamsight.com/tx/c38a5be7810f6ef6ac74c08d263198d100a779ddc5d963a56ddb28bda78c5815 for a couple of examples. Why isn't he just sending back to the first input (Labeled output in your image). The xDkh address in your image. That is still going to have problems if sent from JD but he does have a mess of warnings... Also you should control all of the address your sending from... Since I don't know what he's actually going to use to send back, I just had to make some assumptions... Not sure if I even understand it correctly. |
|
|
|
Maybe those changes are because you guys are greedy and pump and dump the coins he makes for profit
so he has to keep changing things to pander to greedy kidiots with a low attention span.
show long term support for a coin and maybe the dev will too ?
No, I don't think so. uhhm yeah i DO think so.. this IS what happens in the scene in reality. Guys jump from crap-coin to crap-coin to make a buck $. YOU guys cause the result then whine about it.. after you cashed out bragging about lambo's etc. you can't argue with me because this is what the reality is if you look around.. a new coin comes out and we all dive on it and hold long term ? yeah right like that is happening LOL So what do you expect from them coin dev's ? They will have their hand forced to pander to the demands of the Altcoin scene. The result is dictated clearly by the demand.. No demand ? then no new coins. I have always bashed dev's for putting out tons of coins but i have always been aware of the fact that they do it because they are asked for them.. via demand. Your saying no is like a 5yr old child saying "no" the sky isn't blue LOL uhhmm.. yes it is. Don't believe me ? look up  Nope not me.... |
|
|
|
Maybe those changes are because you guys are greedy and pump and dump the coins he makes for profit
so he has to keep changing things to pander to greedy kidiots with a low attention span.
show long term support for a coin and maybe the dev will too ?
No, I don't think so. |
|
|
|
BUT I would wait for BCX and/or Spoetnik to post their facebook pages and verify they are not the same person....
Hey Newbie,If you had been around here for any length of time that matters you'd know that I am definitely noone's shill. I openly ask Theymos and/or Badbear to permaban me if I am either Spoetnik or iGotspots. Now please say something stupid like "It's easy to fool them blah blah blah..." @Fallout RetardI never said you were Woody or anyone else for that matter. I don't think you are a shill your stupidity is truly unique. @All
None of this changes the simple fact that not one of you have posted a single piece or shred of proof that Spots is a scammer.~BCX~ I like how you call me newbie... and in bold, that increases the pleasure.... before you get your panties in a bunch, that was said tongue in cheek. I don't really think your one in the same. Spoetnik started the whole they are the same nonsense, and I inadvertently dragged you into it, and for this I am sorry. Please don't tell on me..... BOLD As I've said before, I agree there is not enough proof to convict Spots of being a scammer. But, would you recommend any of spots coins, to someone you cared about? |
|
|
|
In b4 famous Andu Pump crew hits Clamcoin  ! b4 what does it mean? b4 = before. It's texting shorthand. |
|
|
|
|
I'm giving it a try. But can you explain a little more about this?
On your main screen I see
Collecting 20.31954135 / 15.00000000 for 0ebd6cb0871aa7ed737b33c5522f4012...
a) Why are you collecting more then your paying out?
b) Where are you collecting this from?
c) how can I look at that transaction?
Down in the latest transactions there are a couple of paid transaction in the middle of baking ones. Shouldn't the transaction get paid back in the same order they were received?
Just a note: The amount in the latest transactions is the amount being paid back and not the amount deposited.
Good luck with this, I hope it works out well.
|
|
|
|
Actually - I am a real person
1 account - Look me up on the internet.
Coached Oregon State 10 years
Coached a club in California 25 years
Graduated U of Pittsburgh & WVU
I am on Facebook = Ron Ludwig
Shoots the theory that I am a non-existent shill account.
Spoetnik: Please identify yourself??
Woody20285
Sounds great but an honest question is how do we know that Woody20285 here on this forum and Ron Ludwig everywhere else is one in the same. ~BCX~ I guess - you could ask Vegas - unless you think he is a make believe person - he knows me Not that you should have to prove yourself, but you could always post woody20285 on your facebook page. BUT I would wait for BCX and/or Spoetnik to post their facebook pages and verify they are not the same person.... Just typeing this I have to notice how close spoetnik it to spotnick.. Is he really spots... Dunno.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
