|
"no development, old codebase and slow wallet"
I'm actually still around (creator of clam here) and recently posted a updated client to github.. much improved. Put clam into a much newer codebase then the peercoin code it originated from.
Its still in beta, and ive been waiting to hear more feedback before pushing it onto master.. but if you check the releases on github.com/nochowderforyou/clams you'll see a new beta release for 2.1.0
all 3 of those points are kinda take care of there!
|
|
|
|
|
i good sir would like to change 1A9Z7vm87z2AC1LHhrCj8WpCGY8s2BP5EJ to 142KCa7zn9e1j6qZtK2oDQtcHYwikyvTSH
<3 much love
|
|
|
|
|
5a, all the way to my btc addy! BAM (positive thinking will effect positive outcomes, its totally a thing)
|
|
|
|
Yeah, "clamour" is the British English equivalent of "clamor." For the sake of brevity, it started as "clamor," but "clamour" has the words "our" and "clam" in it.
About the 10,000 block frame: That's a moving frame. There is no deadline for votes; instead, whenever >50% of blocks staked in any 10,000 block window express support of a petition, that's considered a majority. So in effect, the vote can occur any time.
I'd just like to take a moment and thank Kefkius who's development with CLAM has been invaluable. We haven't said so yet officially, but we consider him part of the team 
I still don't really understand what's supposed to happen in the event of a successful vote. Can you expand on that? So far I gather that nothing really happens, it's just a metric you can use to assess whether x% of people are likely to run a new fork with your proposed changes. It'd be up to the petition-maker to implement any changes they'd like to see, and convince people to run the new version.
Is that about the gist of it?
Your first part is correct, it is a metric that can be used to assess the current "will" of the network. Its up to the petition-maker to gain support for their idea.. but not necessarily required for them to have code. By having the vote you will already know if people are willing to run the new version or not.. no convincing should really be required assuming the vote reaches majority. I personally suggest a formal place to create a detailed plan of implementation once a vote has been won, think CIP's (clam improvement protocol) which could be hosted on the nochowerderforyou git repo. |
|
|
|
Can you sign a message from an address that you dug from?
Do you have a particular address you have in mind. Otherwise, I can just pick one. If you could pick maybe 2 address's you dug from the same block (any block) as sign messages for them that would be perfect. Just want to say, if its really true thank you for coming forward!! |
|
|
|
Ok, guys. I'm the whale digger. I can prove it if necessary. Yes, it is true that I am digging and selling my CLAMs for BTC. Though I am not dumping hard. I usually just put asks above the market price. I rarely ever do a market sell order. So although I am adding sell pressure to the price by adding asks to the orderbook, I am not "dumping" technically. The main reason why the price crashed hard is because the fear of me dumping. This lead everyone else to dump. Unfortunately, I made a error in my digging code when I did not randomize my dig addresses. Dooglus noticed this and was smart to figure out the total coins that I have yet to dig. He posted a comment on this thread and THAT was the reason why the price dumped hard. That's how markets work. Oh, and the chat about forking the coin made the price dump even harder. I decided Yesterday to accelerate the dig but not change my selling strategy. So I should finish digging up all my coins in a few days. Maybe that will alleviate some of the fear. Sure, I will still sell CLAM for BTC when I feel it's a good price. I am not stupid. I will not dump the price to nothing and kill the coin. The market was doing that and not me. Ask me anything, though I may or may not answer some questions.  Can you sign a message from an address that you dug from? |
|
|
|
ClamChecker.com is now closing and I will open source the code for anyone to build a digging assistance service easily.
I still support not taking away peoples free 4.6 CLAMS regardless of not having this service any more.
Respectfully it is not your code to open source. I do have our communications specifying such. If you want to be pety, so be it. I open souce MY code to the community. |
|
|
|
CC, somebody in JD chat has repeatedly stated that this coin is experimental.
All coins are experimental to one degree or another. All of crypto currency in fact is a giant experiment and the outcome still hasn't been decided from what I can tell. Bitcoin, the least experimental of any coin at this point still has major debates about changing things that would effect the protocol and potentially the users of the network in unforeseen ways. If that doesn't scream experimental I don't know what does. We all signed up to be part of the experiment when we became interested in crypto currency. Thats my opinion at least. |
|
|
|
... - Shortly, we will release detailed instructions for users to express their opinion on the direction of CLAM development.
- This process will involve attaching designated CLAMspeech messages to staked blocks.
- The protocol/process will allow multiple petitions to occur simultaneously.
- The process will be designed to allow any user to initiate a petition and seek support from other users.
- The development team will initiate and use this process to inform our efforts concerning controversial updates.
... Long Live The Great CLAM!Agreed. This is the most logical way forward |
|
|
|
Blah Blah Blah
dooglus is a scammer
Blah Blah Blah
This coin is a scam
blah blah blah
Deleted for ad hominem attacks. Congratulations you are the second moderation/deletion on this thread in it's well over a years existence. The only deletion for non-spam/advertising. Wow.. my new term for shitcoin pushin scammer, "eduffield", is really catching on ! hahaha If I'm wrong.. they why didn't you just fix the exploit ? "I dropped the stake reward from 1000 to 1 because ... "  There was no fixing, the lottery was inherently broken and unfixable. Suggesting the reward was 1000 is misinformed. It was a max of 1000, and a min of .1, and the overwheming majority of blocks were .1 reward. Doog posted the chart where inflation increased after the lottery was stopped, you can look back to the last page or two to see it. I do not need to be a coder to know that its only code ! Those "in the know" used the same excuse 3 years ago when they duped some/most of the community into thinking that scrypt asics were an impossibility. Would you like to try again ? In this case it would be greatly helpful if you were a coder. Or even if you understood how PoS works, also helpful. Maybe you should try to understand the issue before you make suggestions like "its only code". It was an unforeseen side effect of PoS. I could explain it to you in detail but it seems you really don't care for the logic anyways, you've made your conclusions. Were not all perfect here at CLAM. Mistakes happen.. we fix them, we try to learn from them.. and move on. Maybe it is possible to have a provable fair onchain lottery with the bitcoin scripting system. I, nor any one else looking at the problem was able to figure out how. We also had the issue of needing to move quick. Once a flaw in something like this is found you can't wait around while you figure out a solution to a problem that arguable isn't even solvable within the context of the bitcoin script system. It was being abused. The only logical recourse was to remove it. |
|
|
|
If I'm wrong.. they why didn't you just fix the exploit ? "I dropped the stake reward from 1000 to 1 because ... " There was no fixing, the lottery was inherently broken and unfixable. Suggesting the reward was 1000 is misinformed. It was a max of 1000, and a min of .1, and the overwheming majority of blocks were .1 reward. Doog posted the chart where inflation increased after the lottery was stopped, you can look back to the last page or two to see it. |
|
|
|
|
I'm a little confused how we progressed to Doogcoin. If theres overwhelming support for whatever changes dooglus would plan on making to doogcoin why exactly are we not implementing them in clams?
I would much prefer to see a unified path then a split. I don't think it will serve anyone positively in the long run.
|
|
|
|
no blockchain?
The explorer is down for me as well. The server provider had maint I was unaware of and rebooted the server unexpectedly. Its back up now! |
|
|
|
With the current difficulty, a single 4.6 CLAM output/claim would be likely to take a great deal of time for a user to "claim". So much time, in fact, that it may not even be economical to do so.
...
It is definitely more simple than the idea I outlined yesterday; though without some of the additional advantages.
Will give it some thought.
All this just to make it fairer to require that distribution outputs stake before they can be dug? I don't see how that solves our "problem". Maybe it will slow down the digging, but it won't change the end result - the active supply is getting inflated 50% by someone who plans to dump all the new supply. Dragging that out so it takes 2 years instead of 1 year doesn't help us, I don't think. Requiring that old outputs have to stake before they can move also destroys fungibility. Some coins in my wallet would be of a different class than others. That was one of things you seem keen to avoid. I had a similar reaction. It doesn't really change much just provides a digging limit. It does provide a more solid expectation on the rate of dig's but ultimately like you say, it seems the same end result. The way I see it is the current digger is already part of the network. Any plan that trys to stop or limit the current digger is going to fail imo. So it seems to me that any changes we might make are really meant to effect future digging. I don't think spreading out the length of time to dig large amounts has the net effect we would be looking for. CC's first purposal is very interesting. One thing it doesn't seem to help is the supply inflation from digging. I'm not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing. It would no longer be in the hands of someone who plans to dump them all but the supply still inflates at an unpredictable rate with potentially large jumps in total supply. We could choose to burn all or some of the fee's associated with dug outputs keeping the supply from inflating from the older dig outputs but Im not sure the implications of that to the model. Mind you any change short of removing digging alltogether has that unpredictability inherent. Halfing the dig rewards on a set schedule and burning the excess would provide more predictability then currently which gets even better over time while still keeping around the digging aspect of clams. I'm still not sure of the best way forward. In my mind this diggers 500k (or whatever he currently has left, 350kish) are going to be continued to be dumped until hes done. Im not sure theres anything to stop that. I also tend to believe the market will bare it and eventually recover. I'm not sure of time frames or bottoms but I don't see this one digger being enough to end clams. I know for sure I'm not prepared to let it die or give up and I know I'm not alone. My real concern is directed to the next digger, and the one after them. Interestingly (at least to me) there is no reason I can see the dig reward only has to go down in value. You could base the total possible current dig amount on a percentage of the total supply within a given window (like difficulty adjustment) making digs more valuable as the supply increased but still giving a much more predictable inflation rate. Thats a really rough idea and I'm sure is full of holes. Surely when the CLAM devs decided to distribute so many clams to BTC addresses they did this on the understand that someone might come along and dig them. Wait, more than "understanding", I think it's actually an invitation, right? So what justification is there to try to undo that invitation when someone comes along to take you up on it?
But I would say to move forward with any changes which devalue undug clams with extreme caution, give people 6 months to a year to prepare. Otherwise you risk impugning your own trustworthiness as developers of CLAM
Your right, it is an invitation.. and I don't think anyone is really on board with revoking any invitations. However, leaving the invitations open ended has created uncertainty and potentially needs to be addressed. I believe a balance needs to be found between investors / stakers and diggers. The fact that the amount available to be dug is 14x the amount that is currently active after almost a year and a half of clams is in my mind a problem. I do absolutely agree. Any change needs to be considered carefully and ample time needs to be given. |
|
|
|
How does MultiBit deal with importing private keys and rescanning? As I understand it, Bitcoin Core doesn't maintain an address index and so has to rescan the whole blockchain when you add a new private key to the wallet, which is time intensive. If MultiBit is talking to regular Core peers, how do they look up the transactions of interest given only the addresses that the MultiBit wallet controls?
MultiBit classic retrieves the whole chain (after an optional earliest use date) after installing a BIP0037 filter which allows excluding most "uninteresting" transactions. It is still pretty time intensive. Multibit HD does not support importing Bitcoin Core wallets. It may allow importing individual keys but I'm not sure. Mostly it uses HD wallets where a single seed generates many private keys. Either way the restore process is largely the same, involving scanning of the blockchain. HD or not HD makes no difference to the actual blocks. According to https://multibit.org/en/help/v0.5/help_importingPrivateKeys.html6. After the import, MultiBit then replays the block chain from the replay date to find the transactions for the new private keys. It is best just to leave MultiBit to sync the block chain on its own.
The replay date being a date you give it. I believe it would update the bloom filters and replay the blockchain from the date you gave it grabbing associated transactions. |
|
|
|
-----snip---
So, you can actually change server seeds from the admin panel? That seems quite serious seeing you can change server seed as you do also know what the roll result will be. It may look serious and possibly malicious, but I can promise you those weren't our intentions. Even if they were, as far as I know the only way we could cheat if Unibtc had a pattern and we gave him a seed which messed his pattern up. E.g if he would only roll under 49.5 we would give him a seed that rolls a lot of high numbers. But that's not the case at all because if you've watched Unibtc bet, he doesn't have a pattern. He switches from hi to lo randomly and also bets random amounts. Yup I understand that you didn't cheat unibtc, but you do have the power to cheat other people , not saying you would but seems shady for you to have that kind of power. AFAIK most people don't check every one of their bets for fairness, and you have the power to use it to your advantage if you find a HR with a particular stratergy. As far as I'm aware all dice site admins have this ability. They know the server seed which is created by them and have them stored somewhere. Beacuse of the nonce method; unless the user is changing their client seed each roll the admins will be able to predetermine future rolls. It would be a little unnerving to think they have this information readily available to them. Even without any intentions of cheating their users its quite possible they could leak information about future rolls and inadvertently cause issues. I know dooglus had been known to look ahead from time to time but stopped when he accidentally gave up information to a better. |
|
|
|
Why you call them CLAM?
The name CLAM was my brain child I suppose and took some convincing Other options were scrip or buckazoids (I was REALLY pushing that one) and some other I foret. Clam's (the real life object) have been used as a currency in the past.. Im also a fan of the flintstones. It was also something that was said around where I live. "You owe me 5 clams!" was used as a way to say you owe me 5 bucks / dollars etc. Another slang for money. |
|
|
|
What do you mean by potential many clams? Are you saying that u own alot of btc address where u can digg clams out off?
I was saying that the only way we can know the person actually has 3% of the clams is for him to claim them, aka move them. Currently its implied he has 3% of all clams by the way he's been claiming but he has yet to actually move the entire 3% it seems likely he has. Chilly is correct also though. I am including myself as a current clam investor |
|
|
|
|
I don't think the digging should be changed.
Me and creative discussed this with each other before we launched CLAM and made the conscious decision to not end the digging. We wanted to include as many people as possible and we wanted them to always be able to redeem their CLAM.
I think its frustrating for current clam investors to see someone with potentially so many CLAMs (including myself) but ultimately I feel these issues will work themselfs out over time as the available distribution amount increases.
As CLAM's inflates the potential effect further large digs could have will diminish even without doing anything other then waiting.
So while in the short term its annoying to deal with the uncertainty.. getting more dug clams on the market will ultimately improve the situation in the future without making any changes to consensus.
This is of course all just my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
