I have my old doge wallet backup but there's no doge left in them. Do I still get clams?
No. Obviously the wallet.dat has to contain private keys that hold funds. DUH!!! OTHERWISE HOW WILL THEY STEAL YOUR MONEY. I've imported large Bitcoin and Dogecoin wallets without any problems. The Bitcoin wallet had several hundred BTC in it, and the Dogecoin wallet had over 100 million DOGE. The wallets weren't encrypted. Nothing was stolen. That's pretty conclusive proof to me that the client is legit. |
|
|
|
since I was invested during that incident (I'm not any longer and won't ever return) and dean doesnt appear to pay doog any bug bounty, maybe investors should come together for that.
I'd be willing to contribute. feel free to drop your donation adress @doog!
I'm not fishing for donations. My point was to bring attention to the lack of any incentive to report bugs. |
|
|
|
I never really read the OP before. Here are some comments: There's a spare ] in the URL which is probably a mistake. Minimum Stake Age: 8 Hours
The code (src/main.cpp) says: unsigned int nStakeMinAge = 4 * 60 * 60; // 8 hours Note the comment says 8 hours, but the code itself says 4 hours. How Your Protected.
"You're". As more people with the skills required *to?* build and sign the binary do so, the trust of the CLAM client will grow.
The "to" is missing. How do I get my CLAMS?
We've done our best to make seeing your CLAMS in your wallet as easy as possible.
The CLAMS are already associated and controlled by your Private Key on the block chain.
This section says nothing about how to get your clams. The Three-Step Claim Your CLAMS Guide (The Quick Guide)
This section does - so we don't need the previous one? 1. Run clam-qt.exe once to auto-magically create the AppData/Clam folder.
2. Copy the BTC, LTC or DOGE wallet.dat file into the AppData/Clam folder.
3. Run clam-qt.exe with the --salvage wallet argument.
You're assuming people are using Windows. The argument is "-salvagewallet" (all one word, 2nd dash optional). 1. Download the CLAM Client, below.
1. Download the CLAM Client, or compile from git below.
1. Download the CLAM Client, below.
It's above, not below isn't it? Dooglus, a very helpful member of the community
I prefer lowercase. I got bored at that point and stopped reading. I don't mine, so the stuff about khashier isn't of interest to me. Hope that's helpful. |
|
|
|
Ah ok I see clam rich peps should split them up. For us clam poor peps the potential gain is to small to make a difference
Actually it seems that if they need splitting up, they will be split up automatically for you eventually. Then possibly recombined, re-split, etc. The client seems a little confused.  |
|
|
|
Not quite. The more CLAMs at an output, the more often it can stake. But, the reward for staking is the same irrelevant of how many CLAMs are in the staked output.
That's right. So breaking your outputs up doesn't increase your expected return, *except* if your output is big enough that it would normally be staking before the 510 block maturation period had expired. The only real change caused by having the block reward not be proportional to the days destroyed is that you can't stop staking for a month then come back and collect a month's worth of staking all at once. It's a stake-it-or-lose-it model now, which is better. And the lottery is so hard to win that it's not worth gaming. All in all I think it's a good change. |
|
|
|
So.Sending of multiples of .73 to myself of the 7.3 Clams I have will Stake 10x more often? Seems easier than what I realize maybe.
No, each one will be 10 times less likely to stake, but there will be 10 times as many of them. The only difference is that the 510 waiting period is no longer significant compared to the expected time between stakings, so you won't be waiting for the 510 blocks to expire - you'll be waiting for your tiny outputs to stake because they're tiny. I think the net effect will be slightly (nowhere near 10x) faster staking. |
|
|
|
Interesting. Can you tell me what is your Stake to mine those amounts per Block? Mine is only mining every 510 Blocks or so.
Each output in your wallet can only mine once every 510 blocks. The secret is to have multiple outputs in your wallet. I just discovered that if a single output mines twice within 28 hours then the client itself splits it up into 2 roughly equal pieces, so they'll each mine less often in future (look up about 3 posts). Edit: note also that the amount you get per block is now independent of everything other than luck. Almost all blocks get 0.1 CLAM, and a few lucky ones get more, up to 1000 CLAMS (see the chart I posted here not long ago). |
|
|
|
I'm wondering what happened here: http://khashier.com:2750/block/ca3766ab458030a2661c83aaaeb4e1ed816969bdd2e285f36a0e4525a144692fI used a single 4.61 clam output to mine a block. As a result I got back two separate outputs (2.3 and 2.31). Why did that happen? The client for some reason decided that my 4.61 should be split into two smaller outputs? Edit: I had previously used the same address twice to mine a block. Both those times it only made a single new output:  Edit2: I guess I've found the answer for myself. The code says: unsigned int nStakeSplitAge = 1 * 24 * 60 * 60;
...
if (GetWeight(block.GetBlockTime(), (int64_t)txNew.nTime) < nStakeSplitAge)
txNew.vout.push_back(CTxOut(0, scriptPubKeyOut)); //split stake
...
if (txNew.vout.size() == 3)
{
txNew.vout[1].nValue = (nCredit / 2 / CENT) * CENT;
txNew.vout[2].nValue = nCredit - txNew.vout[1].nValue;
}
... ie. if an output stakes twice within 24 hours, split it up into two halves, where one half is rounded down to the nearest cent. Now according to the block explorer it was a little over 24 hours, but maybe the timestamps aren't accurate. Checking with my local client, it seems like there really were 25 hours between the two events:  so I'm still not sure what's going on here. Edit3: figured it out - GetWeight() takes off another 4 hours: unsigned int nStakeMinAge = 4 * 60 * 60; // 8 hours So if an output mines twice within 24+4 = 28 hours the output will be split. |
|
|
|
I'm only getting stakes reward every 500 blocks(.1 Clam) Is there anything I can change? Thank you.
Each time you use a transaction output to create a block, it takes 510 blocks before the resulting (slightly bigger) output is "mature". While you're waiting for the 510 blocks you can't spend or mine with that output. You can split your output into 2 smaller outputs (by sending half of its value to yourself). Each smaller output will on average take twice as long to mine a block and so won't make a net difference to your "income", except if the 510 block waiting period is significant. That is, if your large coin is big enough that you would normally expect it to mine a block within 510 blocks, it's worth splitting it up until the parts are small enough that they each take an average of more than 510 blocks each to mine. |
|
|
|
I just plotted a chart showing how likely various rewards are: https://i.imgur.com/9ZpEh4M.pngWhat it's saying is that: 99.76% of the time your reward will be less than 1, 99.84% of the time, it's less than 10, 99.9% of the time, it's less than 60, 99.92% of the time, it's less than 100, etc. Thanks for running the calculations and creating this chart. Definitely makes the hard-fork much more understandable. To be clear, I ran simulation for 10 million different hashes, counted up the rewards, and plotted it. Interesting how most of the chart is very close to a straight line when plotted with a log y axis. I've been thinking about the best strategy re. deliberately not submitting min-reward blocks. It looks to me like withholding is possibly never a good strategy. For example, 99.84% of the time the reward is less than 10, so if you decided to withhold blocks until you got a reward of 10 or more, on average you would be withholding way more than 100 0.1 blocks before you got your reward of 10. Similarly you need to withhold more than 1000 blocks to expect to get a reward of 1000 times 0.1 or more. And so on. In short it looks like withholding low-reward blocks in the hope of getting a high-reward block later may be a losing strategy. |
|
|
|
That appears to be a standard 0.1 block. The extra 0.01 is probably from fees.
Aw.... I thought I ruled  Maybe you do, but "lucky" blocks will almost always have "messy" rewards, going to 7 or 8 decimal places. I just plotted a chart showing how likely various rewards are:  What it's saying is that: 98.4682% of the time, your reward is exactly 0.1 99.5% of the time, your reward is very close to 0.1 (0.1003 or less), 99.6% of the time, your reward is 0.106 or less, 99.7% of the time, your reward is 0.2256 or less, 99.7659% of the time your reward will be less than 1, 99.8% of the time, your reward is 2.4948 or less, 99.8475% of the time, it's less than 10, 99.9% of the time, it's less than 47.702, 99.9239% of the time, it's less than 100, etc. Edit: I just noticed I set a new personal best mining reward: http://khashier.com:2750/block/564c29502b6df08cc9ee84892b85e7ce9e03ac7fae4478375efab1d836b8ff96 got 0.16 clams - the 0.10 minimum and 6 separate 0.01 fees. Edit2: added more data points to the text description |
|
|
|
LoL, Winner Winner, CLAMicken Dinner! Okay, not 'huge', but a special block none-the-less  I got another: http://khashier.com:2750/block/1ccbfe52a98733d4e804b005f298537dabdb61679662879c9299b51dbfc97969This time it was a massive 0.10010956 reward! I added some debug to see how it comes up with the subsidy amount: randSpan: 2147483647.000000
hash: 2dd526f7d04b8581c64e37dc04a601e411ce122905dd461b7ae399684bd2669a
substr: 8581c64
seed: 139992164
random: 2136041863
randCoefficient: 0.994672
nCoefficient: 0.000000
nSubsidy: 10010956.000000
Basically, the 'random' number has to be very high to get a non-minimum reward. Mine was in the top 99.46% and still only got 11k extra satoshis. |
|
|
|
Interesting, I've just noticed that PoS blocks do not appear in my transaction list. But they clearly show for you. I'm on a commandline client under *nix, presumably you're using the Windows -qt client?
My client has definitely staked before - it did so when I was about to send to Poloniex, locking part of the balance for about a day. The amount showed under 'stake' via 'getinfo'
The only transactions showing in the transaction list are the initial grants (30000+ confirms) and 3 sends a few days ago. Am I missing something?
edit: just to confuse things, a client I'm running on another machine - same version, same OS - does show PoS blocks as expected ('generate')
I am running the QT client under Linux precisely because of the issue you describe. I could find a way to get the command line client to reliably indicate that I owned any outputs recently used in staking. They would reappear after hitting maturity, and sometimes wouldn't disappear at all. I don't understand why you failed to code a way of knowing how many clams are found and "live"...
Every successful wallet scan should flag those clams as "live" and transmit to the network...
Without this number you have no way of knowing the number of coins. Or do you???
In general there is no way of knowing how many clams have been "claimed". You could modify the client to violate my privacy and report on how many clams I have claimed, and I could remove your change if I didn't want it. If I chose to start staking, then it becomes public knowledge that my clams are "live". You could count up all the clams from the initial distribution and see how many have been used in staking. That would give a pretty good indication of how many have been claimed. |
|
|
|
Naturally another simple option would be to restart it after a certain time-out where it slows down indeed.
Let us know what you think, we sure can restart this. You are to choose.
I think you made it pretty clear that the scheme wouldn't shut down when it couldn't pay, but would wait for new deposits. As a result, I don't think you can really shut it down any time soon without breaking your promises. You have to give the bag-holders a chance to pass their bag on to new bag-holders. |
|
|
|
How about this? \
\\
I wrap ya fucking head in for posting a scam. 2nd. I fuck your wife while your kids watch? How about that...... 11 posts with ya bullshit go fuckya mutha
How do I sign up for your newsletter? |
|
|
|
If anyone stakes a lottery block over 0.1 post in the forum here!
i don't see any way of telling whether my stake was over 0.1 or not, because the excess could be due to transaction fees. But the first block I staked this evening when I got home appears to be a lottery block over 0.1:  One thing I'm confused about: it used to be that most blocks I staked gave me around 0.00015000 clam, but now the minimum reward is 0.10000000, which is about 700 times bigger. So how does the change not increase inflation? Edit: it looks like *only* the first block I mined this evening has more than the minimum 0.1 rewards - all the extras are transaction fees. See http://khashier.com:2750/block/d3e163be7ecb84fe387ad34b1f3a6e59604e263ab7875136f1a447503b18a95c which shows I got 0.10000116 instead of the usual 0.01000000! I'm such a lottery winner!  |
|
|
|
Especially when a page like prcdice is only since a few days you should rather report a "bug" than to abuse it.
You know what I did when I discovered the bug in PRCDice? I reported it to Dean. He was unaware of it at the time. He had suspended betting to "investigate", found that everything was OK, and resumed betting. I sent him a PM saying that I had found the flaw and that he should suspend betting as soon as possible. Then I explained the flaw to him. I'm not sure if he said thanks or not, but I certainly didn't get any bug bounty for telling him about the flaw. I've not seen him take responsibility for the flaw either. That doesn't really encourage me to report the next flaw I find. I probably will, of course, because that's how I roll (get it?), but I can totally understand people trying to exploit rigged games when they find them, especially if the site is known not to reward responsible disclosure. When nakowa lost 7,000 BTC back to the house on just-dice.com, the owner dooglus changed max profit from 1% down to 0.25%,
If you don't agree with his methods, go back to the gambling websites that you own or the ones that pay you.
Nakowa never lost 7000 BTC on Just-Dice. I did reduce the maximum profit per bet on Just-Dice when made it obvious that it was too high. I waited for him to stop playing before doing so. I think it's perfectly OK to discuss how PRCDice is managed on the PRCDice thread, whether we agree with Dean's management of it or not. This whole "shut up" and "go away" sentiment is fucked up. Forum threads aren't only for saying how great a site is. OK, get it that Dean has said he is unwilling to listen anyone opposing his position. That doesn't mean people should posting their thoughts if they disagree with his. And you can ask Doog to verify but I hounded his ass here (deleted most of my posts) and the chat room for doing that to in middle of Nakowas deposits
I don't have a copy of what you said, but to paraphrase I think you said something like "this is disgusting; I am never visiting JD ever again". ie. you really weren't very pleased about my appalling treatment of poor nakowa. I think you got over it though. Doesn't matter what the amount was, 20BTC or 0.002BTC, scammers and cheats will not be cashed out funds they try to steal from investors or other players.
You keep attacking sjess, but in reality he didn't "scam" or "cheat'. He played your game according to the rules. If anyone was scamming, it was you, advertising untrue chances of winning, and refusing to pay out winning bets. A guy knowingly abused the system. He got back his principal, Dean didn't pay out the exploit, and returned the money to investors. 1 person lost out of dishonest money vs many investors losing.
Lots of people were "abusing the system". sjess made it obvious by playing at exactly the sweet spot for hours. It was sjess' play that brought my attention to the flaw in the first place. I wonder how long people would have been able to slowly milk the site for profit had sjess not played the way he did. I would have paid out Sjess, and that is what many people from the community including Dooglus who ran the top dice site are saying.
I don't think that's what I'm saying. I don't know what i would have done in this situation. Luckily I never found myself in this situation because I test my code before putting it live. Also you are calling someone a kid, when you are really acting like a kid, he provided his side, with proof and you are just name calling.
Meh. Someone called me a "kid" in this thread a couple days ago. I think there's an above average level of cluelessness around here.a |
|
|
|
There is a bunch of information concerning the changes and reasoning behind the changes in the update coming in a very short while to the OP Post.
[...]
We don't hide our commits.
We invite anyone who has "chops" to contribute to the CLAMS project: we believe in open source software.
Where is the "bunch of information"? I see commits to the git repo. Most of them have lot messages like "update" and "updates" and no code comments. There are no pull requests being submitted and discussed that I see. So what is the open source strategy you're using? It sounds to me like I'm missing out on most of the discussion. Where does it happen? |
|
|
|
He has already said its final decission, he has decided what he want to do with it. If you not got anything new to say, its best to shut up, becauce we can read you and uvwvj earlier posts here, and we all know what your opinions is allready. Not any point to repeat ourself. And if you counted cards at a casino and got away with 4% of casino bankroll it would be nice for you. That is a generous casnio.
Casinos don't let you take 4% of their bankroll by counting cards. They closely monitor their games, and ask you to stop playing long before you win anything significant. They don't let you flat-bet and win on an untested game for 15 hours before stopping you. |
|
|
|
It's a totally different situation. "celeste" was playing with virtual coins that he had already withdrawn, so his bets weren't "real". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
