Don't you wonder that CLAM still goes down, even when the digger has revealed himself?
Being caught in a marketwide downdraft means something. Almost every coin is down today except NMC and RBY. BTC up, pretty much everything else down. |
|
|
|
|
What we have seen every time in the past (AFAIK -- I wasn't around at the very beginning so I may be wrong about very early digs), including this one, is that most often diggers show up after big price increases. It may be people who are aware of their available dig but don't bother until the price goes up enough to motivate them, or people who aren't even aware of CLAM until it starts showing up on price and volume leader boards, and then figure out they have coins to dig.
So my prediction is that we will not see any more big digs until the price recovers. Of course, it is just a prediction, and could well be incorrect.
The discussion about cutting off or taxing digging may motivate more short term diggers than otherwise would have been the case though.
|
|
|
|
Why do I get this warning when I try to download latest miner?  What is the current listing status for ottrbutt.com?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 6 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 18 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 3 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2015-08-16, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2015-08-16.
Malicious software includes 41 trojan(s). Same thought came to my mind !  It's because my site hosts miner executables. Since botnets often use miners, they immediately flag ALL miners as malware. I'd try opening a ticket with google and asking them to stop making false statements about your site (assuming of course that your site doesn't do that) |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Received another 3000 deposit so we are now above 10k CLAMS.
Also received a donation of 3 CLAMs. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Yes that is well known. The "top guy" on that list is x JDCLAMZkcp7fQ3ieHfZA4SLu3aTy2Y1mr Did it not occur to you that is the same as the Just-Dice bankroll? Yes but coinmarketcap does not count premined coins that aren't yet circulated. Same with ripple, etc. It does correctly list "Total Supply" for CLAMS here but that number isn't used for market cap calculations, "Available Supply" is. |
|
|
|
I am also mining BCN right now and I do not know where to trade or sell them. I am currently building a small supply in my wallet, but they are doing nothing but sitting there building up. Can anyone tell me where I can trade them or use them to purchase something. Any advise would be helpful.
why don't you find a new coin to mine that's not a proven scam coin?  Post history indicates sigspamming. |
|
|
|
Doesn't look that way to me. Please explain. |
|
|
|
Any mining updates with Dash (or x11 in general), are we still mostly on AMD cards or Maxwell cards, any news of FPGAs?
FPGA is still doable, and still not happening unless you've money to invest. I'm working on designs for FPGA, but it's kind of a side project for now. What would be the best hashing algorithm if the objective was to enable easy to produce and affordable ASICs or FPGAs that would still be profitable or at least break-even for regular consumers? Or is that even possible as large ASIC mines would take over anyway if the ASIC was easy to manufacture? Large ASIC miners would just make TONS of the chips - economies of scale: shit gets cheaper when you make more of it. But what if the chip where the algorithm itself is is very simple and cheap to design and produce and the shit it requires and depends mostly on is already available and being manufactured the most efficient way possible, like memory? Wouldn't that mean that the cost $/hash would remain constant no matter how much you buy it? Memory-hard PoW is indeed one direction some people have pursued but it hasn't really either caught on nor been tried much and failed, so it is just a theory. Some terrible attempts suffer from the problem that most algorithms that use very large amounts of memory are also too slow to verify. A couple of memory-hard algorithms that have been proposed that don't suffer (too much?) from the verification problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=405483.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196953.0Both have white papers. One potential vulnerability to ASIC optimization is that existing memory is rather general-purpose. Possibly you could make special purpose memory for any particular mining algorithm that would be cheaper or more efficient. For example, one general way to do that is just by making the memory less reliable (in terms of bit error rate). For general purpose computers, unreliable memory means your computer crashes, but for mining it may just hurt your hash rate a few percent, which could be a very good tradeoff. Likewise lifetime and/or hard failure rate in the field. If a computer fails, the user is inconvenienced, maybe returns it under warranty or doesn't buy from that manufacturer again. If one node in a big farm fails, it just gets replaced, with again a small hit to hash rate and not much else. |
|
|
|
Adding the ability to express your opinion on-chain in a well-defined way doesn't cause any harm, and allows us to get a clearer view of what the community wants than the current best system we have - that of shouting at each other in forum posts.
It is not at all clear that this doesn't, or couldn't, cause any harm. It allows a conclusion to be promoted as "fair" when it may be nothing of the sort. You even used the phrase "provably fair" in your post. I recognize that is a being used as a term of art, but not everyone will recognize that. There is such a thing as sham votes that serve to falsely legitimize something that would seen as illegitimate if openly imposed a single party or a small oligopoly. Yet with on-chain voting, that can easily happen non-transparently. With on-chain voting, it is impossible to know that one party or a small group doesn't control >50% of the votes, making everyone else's "vote" absolutely irrelevant if decisions are made by a "majority". Even control of a relatively large portion that isn't itself an absolute majority, say 30% (or likewise for decisions made by a super-majority threshold) by one person or a group acting together gives very disproportionate influence. (BTW, I'm not referring in any way to Just-Dice here, I'm referring more generally to beneficial coin ownership, on the assumption that you pass through voting rights as you have promised, or that people withdraw from JD in order to vote.) It is taking what is already a system that is vulnerable to disproportionate influence by large stake holders (proof-of-stake) and further concentrating that influence with the very same large stake holders. One might imagine that stake-voting in a proof-of-work chain could make sense because the concentrated influence of large stake-holders could counterbalance the concentrated influence of large miners. But here it makes no sense at all. On-chain "voting" is done for soft-forks only when they are non-contentious, and the threshold is extremely high (typically 95%). It is more a measure of how many have upgraded to the latest version to avoid breaking things than a decision-making process. BTW, as bad as shouting at each other on forum posts might be, one person really can't shout 10 000 times louder than someone else, especially if obvious sock puppets are ignored. That's a feature. |
|
|
|
I worry that the CLAM rich will vote to disenfranchise the CLAM poor - but Creative points out that the voting system is only a provably fair way of gathering information about consensus.
Disagree that it does that. It gathers provably-accurate information about votes, that is all. Consensus exists because the network does not fail, and I'm not sure there is actually a better way to gather information than just that. That consensus is not necessarily egalitarian, however. Various parties may influence it in highly unequal ways. I suppose there are different, largely subjective, ways to define what it means to fail. If control is centralized, even in a de facto manner, then I personally consider that a failure because much more efficient and mature centrally-controlled systems exist, making such a system pointless. Others may disagree with my assessment. No one can dictate what someone else values. |
|
|
|
|
Looking at these charts it seems to me the historical rate of digging has been close to staking (the latter being mostly a constant except for the various rule changes). There have been periods of slow digging, and periods of faster digging. Perhaps that is somewhat a function of price action (slow digging -> less supply -> price increases -> more digging -> lower prices -> slow digging, repeat), or perhaps just independent fluctuations (or both).
Eventually staking has to dominate because the potential digging is finite, but that may not happen for a long time.
I believe effective decentralization will drive the price higher as the coin becomes more trustworthy for everyone. That can be part of a virtuous cycle where more decentralization leads to more trust and more adoption which leads to more decentralization. I also believe this can potentially be undermined by "voting" systems that are inherently centralizing (share of voting power is an increasing function of share of stake). That's somewhat similar to dooglas's point about delegated stake being potentially dangerous. I guess we'll see how it works out.
|
|
|
|
The staking pool is going strong, now with a balance of >7000 CLAMs, approaching 1% of the staking supply, which should allow us to stake 10+ times per day (once all the coins in the pool sufficiently mature) to ensure consistent stake rewards for pool members, plus of course helping to decentralize the network. Thanks to dooglas for helping out on an issue with the -staketo option. Pool thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1200703.0 |
|
|
|
|
Updated staking and another 1000 deposit. Pool balance is now 7287.6031
|
|
|
|
|
One more deposit of 544 noted above.
|
|
|
|
So I was traveling all day today and couldn't really follow what happened on the test run... Can anyone give me a TLDR version of everything that happened? I think everything went smoothly but don't really know. So glad I don't really have to know how to run these types of things and know that monero is in good hands with active devs and experts in the crypto world.
See beneath: The test run sounds like it was a resounding success! Yes it was. There will need to be some more testing of the "version 2" state now that the fork is over but the forking process itself went perfectly. |
|
|
|
|
Re1 (XMRpromotions)
Rb2 (ArticMine, smooth)
|
|
|
|
americanpegasus, so you offered 6 options in your voting, disregarding other options. Sort of like the democrat and republican option, while every other option doesn't get mentioned in the media. Smart but tricky.
You're almost a part of a cartel here, so it makes sense.
Nobody is voting really. It is just a discussion. |
|
|
|
That's exactly what is accounted for in Peter R's math, and it doesn't work. There are many ways to look at why it doesn't work but one way is to recognize that the cost of an orphan comes from the block reward (cost = reward * risk). So without a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies. You can work out a more complex model where you already have N transactions in the block (with some fees) and transaction N+1 increases the orphan risk (which is what Peter R did), but you still get the same result. It doesn't work.
You mean "with a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies," right? I meant without a reward the cost of orphans collapses to zero. What you wrote applies too of course. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
