Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest

[fox19891989]

i think most of this faqs were just google translated

Sniffed out a bad chinese google trans earlier.  Scammed me for 50 clam!

You should ask me to translate, I don't use Google translator, my translation service link  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759494

[1714922248]

1714922248

[1714922248]

1714922248

[1714922248]

1714922248

[1714922248]

1714922248

[picolo]

* the investor won isn't lying sees his share of the bankroll diluted by 'lying' investors - but he gets to stay invested when the liar investors are forced out by a winning player, and gets a much bigger share if the winning player turns into a losing player after that

So if I do not want to lie on my bankroll and I do not want it to be diluted (assuming others are lying), I have to wait that a winning player 'calls' their bluff (?)

If you are claiming a lot of offsite coins that you don't have, you don't get any stack reward from them and you risk to lose more if a whale wins big.

[dooglus]

This is in reply to a post on the CLAM thread.

I'm answering it here because it doesn't really belong there.

I would be in favor of not giving stacking rewards for CLAM that cannot stack but I don't feel strongly about it.

It's tricky. Suppose you deposit 100 CLAM and a minute later I withdraw 100 CLAM. I'm going to get the 100 you deposited. Should you have to wait 4 hours before you get staking rewards? I don't see why you should. The full onsite invested amount is now staking... I have things set up such that new deposits are used to service withdrawals, and so there's never a huge amount of coin 'waiting' to age.

It's almost always true that the amount of coin in the wallet that is waiting its 4 hours to start staking is smaller than the amount that is in people's balances but not invested. So you end up getting more than your fair share of the reward anyway.

What about allowing investors not to invest for bets of more than a certain number of CLAM : you could invest only for bets of less than 1 CLAM or less than 10 CLAM, if someone bets more you don't win or lose.

I don't like the idea, and it would be a real pain to implement. Currently I don't track each investor's balance, I only know what percentage of the total bankroll they own. We can handle 100 bets per second because each bet only has to update the site's bankroll, not 200 different investor balances. If each investor had a different range of bet sizes they were willing to get involved with it breaks that scheme, and I have to update all the investor balances for all bets.

What's your motivation for suggesting such a scheme? How would it be fair for you to take all the nice low variance bets and leave the more dangerous bigger bets to other people? I don't think it would be.

[picolo]

This is in reply to a post on the CLAM thread.

I'm answering it here because it doesn't really belong there.

I would be in favor of not giving stacking rewards for CLAM that cannot stack but I don't feel strongly about it.

It's tricky. Suppose you deposit 100 CLAM and a minute later I withdraw 100 CLAM. I'm going to get the 100 you deposited. Should you have to wait 4 hours before you get staking rewards? I don't see why you should. The full onsite invested amount is now staking... I have things set up such that new deposits are used to service withdrawals, and so there's never a huge amount of coin 'waiting' to age.

It's almost always true that the amount of coin in the wallet that is waiting its 4 hours to start staking is smaller than the amount that is in people's balances but not invested. So you end up getting more than your fair share of the reward anyway.

What about allowing investors not to invest for bets of more than a certain number of CLAM : you could invest only for bets of less than 1 CLAM or less than 10 CLAM, if someone bets more you don't win or lose.

I don't like the idea, and it would be a real pain to implement. Currently I don't track each investor's balance, I only know what percentage of the total bankroll they own. We can handle 100 bets per second because each bet only has to update the site's bankroll, not 200 different investor balances. If each investor had a different range of bet sizes they were willing to get involved with it breaks that scheme, and I have to update all the investor balances for all bets.

What's your motivation for suggesting such a scheme? How would it be fair for you to take all the nice low variance bets and leave the more dangerous bigger bets to other people? I don't think it would be.

I agree with the stacking system, investors have the advantage of getting stack rewards 24/7 and the stack reward on clams that are on the balance of players? By the way can you confirm this last point?
Could you tell me approximatively the average total balance of players for the last 2 weeks or now? I understand it must fluctuate a lot.

The motivation of suggesting such a scheme is that some investors are interesting about having a return with low volatility and some investors are interested about having the best return long term even if it means having a small risk of losing most their investment.
Allowing investors to choose the max profit they are "playing" would allow the prudent investors to have steady returns and the others to have a bigger return (if whales don't get lucky). I understand why it would be technically difficult to do it.

If your CLAM are only used for bets of less than 1 CLAM you would likely win everyday and if your clams are only used for bets of less than 10 CLAM you will likely never lose a large portion of your investment.

[dooglus]

I agree with the stacking system,

First off, note that the word is "stake", as in "an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise", not stack. By owning CLAM you have a stake or interest in the whole CLAM economy, such as it is, and get to earn rewards proportional to the size of your stake.

investors have the advantage of getting stack rewards 24/7 and the stack reward on clams that are on the balance of players? By the way can you confirm this last point?

It's true, the whole wallet stakes, which includes onsite investments, balances, and any commission that has been charged by the site but not yet credited to an account. The 90% of each stake reward is shared between investors in proportion to the size of their onsite investment and the other 10% goes to the site as commission. The rewards don't count as profit for the purposes of calculating commission at the end of the week, since the 10% is taken off before the rewards are distributed.

Could you tell me approximatively the average total balance of players for the last 2 weeks or now? I understand it must fluctuate a lot.

I don't track it, but whenever I look it is between 2k and 4k, usually much closer to 2k. Right now it's 2037.72475057 CLAM. I expect somebody divested and forgot to reinvest their 2k. Players don't often leave coins in their balance - they either lose them, invest them, or withdraw them. There's nothing to be gained by leaving coins sitting idle in your balance when putting them in the bankroll makes them able to receive staking rewards.

The motivation of suggesting such a scheme is that some investors are interesting about having a return with low volatility and some investors are interested about having the best return long term even if it means having a small risk of losing most their investment.
Allowing investors to choose the max profit they are "playing" would allow the prudent investors to have steady returns and the others to have a bigger return (if whales don't get lucky). I understand why it would be technically difficult to do it.

If your CLAM are only used for bets of less than 1 CLAM you would likely win everyday and if your clams are only used for bets of less than 10 CLAM you will likely never lose a large portion of your investment.

I understand that some investors don't want the risk of bankrolling large bets, but there's nobody who ONLY wants to bankroll the large bets, or to bankroll more than their fair share of large bets.

It's clearly much better to bankroll a million small bets than one big bet worth the same amount. The small bets are the most desirable.

Allowing some investors to have an unfair share of the small bets necessarily means punishing the other investors with an unfair share of the bigger bets.

[ranlo]

I don't track it, but whenever I look it is between 2k and 4k, usually much closer to 2k. Right now it's 2037.72475057 CLAM. I expect somebody divested and forgot to reinvest their 2k. Players don't often leave coins in their balance - they either lose them, invest them, or withdraw them. There's nothing to be gained by leaving coins sitting idle in your balance when putting them in the bankroll makes them able to receive staking rewards.

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

[Keyser Soze]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

[ranlo]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

[Keyser Soze]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

[dooglus]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

Yeah. All the coins in the wallet stake, but the staking rewards are only shared with the investors. If you deposit to play and leave the coins in your balance but not invested, you don't get a share of the staking rewards.

I was being asked how many coins that typically involves. I was saying "not many". We have 350k or so invested, and only 2k or so not invested. So it doesn't make a huge difference to how much you stake. It doesn't even make up for the 10% commission the site charges.

At the moment there are 1678.31637478 coins in user balances, not counting their "invested" coins. That's the lowest I've seen for some time.

[ranlo]

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

Yeah. All the coins in the wallet stake, but the staking rewards are only shared with the investors. If you deposit to play and leave the coins in your balance but not invested, you don't get a share of the staking rewards.

I was being asked how many coins that typically involves. I was saying "not many". We have 350k or so invested, and only 2k or so not invested. So it doesn't make a huge difference to how much you stake. It doesn't even make up for the 10% commission the site charges.

At the moment there are 1678.31637478 coins in user balances, not counting their "invested" coins. That's the lowest I've seen for some time.

Thanks for clarifying this, . It makes a lot more sense now.

And I have no complaints about people keeping coins there that aren't invested. More for investors!

All things considered, I like how you've got everything set up (including /offsite), and this is coming from someone that was diluted as a result of it (as I just roll with the normal 1:1). With that said, I think it's a beneficial thing overall.

[dooglus]

All things considered, I like how you've got everything set up (including /offsite), and this is coming from someone that was diluted as a result of it (as I just roll with the normal 1:1). With that said, I think it's a beneficial thing overall.

The /offsite dilution certainly makes the big wins more tolerable. I can see losses like this, and still make a net profit from the staking rewards:



It's still sad to see the CLAMs disturbed from their staking wallet though. I guess they'll be bought by somebody and find their way back home soon enough.

Edit:

[ranlo]

All things considered, I like how you've got everything set up (including /offsite), and this is coming from someone that was diluted as a result of it (as I just roll with the normal 1:1). With that said, I think it's a beneficial thing overall.

The /offsite dilution certainly makes the big wins more tolerable. I can see losses like this, and still make a net profit from the staking rewards:



It's still sad to see the CLAMs disturbed from their staking wallet though. I guess they'll be bought by somebody and find their way back home soon enough.

I think the people against the whole /offsite deal don't really comprehend the way that it works. They just see "they can be lying about how many coins they have!" without realizing that, for all intents and purposes, it has nothing to do with people claiming only what they have/can afford. To me, it's just like buying stocks on margin.

BTW, what is up with all the outputs (or inputs I guess) there that are for 6/7 CLAM? Stake is smaller than this and the original CLAM claims are less as well. Where do the perfectly round 6/7's come from?

[dooglus]

BTW, what is up with all the outputs (or inputs I guess) there that are for 6/7 CLAM? Stake is smaller than this and the original CLAM claims are less as well. Where do the perfectly round 6/7's come from?

I split the whole wallet up into lots of 4 CLAM outputs for staking efficiency. The 4's stake to become 5, then 6 then 7, and when a 7 stakes I split it into two 4's.

(Outputs are unable to stake again for 510 blocks after they have staked, so you don't want them to be too big).

[ranlo]

BTW, what is up with all the outputs (or inputs I guess) there that are for 6/7 CLAM? Stake is smaller than this and the original CLAM claims are less as well. Where do the perfectly round 6/7's come from?

I split the whole wallet up into lots of 4 CLAM outputs for staking efficiency. The 4's stake to become 5, then 6 then 7, and when a 7 stakes I split it into two 4's.

(Outputs are unable to stake again for 510 blocks after they have staked, so you don't want them to be too big).

I wasn't even thinking about it being lottery-style instead of being based on age of coins (i.e., normal PoS). That makes a lot of sense, . But why 4 specifically and not 2, 3?

[dooglus]

I wasn't even thinking about it being lottery-style instead of being based on age of coins (i.e., normal PoS). That makes a lot of sense, . But why 4 specifically and not 2, 3?

Age used to matter, but now only size matters. A single 400k output will stake 100k times faster than a 4 output, but then the whole thing will be idle for 8 hours while it matures.

The size is a tradeoff. Too small and it takes too long to check all your outputs for staking opportunities, and withdrawal transactions are too big. Too big and you waste a lot of time waiting for coins to mature.

Right now there are 356359.88675612 CLAM in the JD wallet trying to stake and 2171.26810000 waiting to mature.

That seems about right - we stake about 1000 times per day, the average output size is 5 becoming 6, and it takes about 8 hours to mature. So a third of 1000*6 should be maturing at any point in time. That's less than 1% of the balance. We could half the size of the average output and halve the inefficiency from 1% to 0.5% at the cost of doubling CPU usage and withdrawal tx size.

[ranlo]

I wasn't even thinking about it being lottery-style instead of being based on age of coins (i.e., normal PoS). That makes a lot of sense, . But why 4 specifically and not 2, 3?

Age used to matter, but now only size matters. A single 400k output will stake 100k times faster than a 4 output, but then the whole thing will be idle for 8 hours while it matures.

The size is a tradeoff. Too small and it takes too long to check all your outputs for staking opportunities, and withdrawal transactions are too big. Too big and you waste a lot of time waiting for coins to mature.

Right now there are 356359.88675612 CLAM in the JD wallet trying to stake and 2171.26810000 waiting to mature.

That seems about right - we stake about 1000 times per day, the average output size is 5 becoming 6, and it takes about 8 hours to mature. So a third of 1000*6 should be maturing at any point in time. That's less than 1% of the balance. We could half the size of the average output and halve the inefficiency from 1% to 0.5% at the cost of doubling CPU usage and withdrawal tx size.

Thanks for breaking this all down. This also helps explain why I have somewhat high CPU usage when a client gets to 60+ transactions as opposed to having just one (after I merge).

So really it's just a battle of finding that perfect balance between server efficiency and reward efficiency.

[dooglus]

Thanks for breaking this all down. This also helps explain why I have somewhat high CPU usage when a client gets to 60+ transactions as opposed to having just one (after I merge).

So really it's just a battle of finding that perfect balance between server efficiency and reward efficiency.

Each output gets one chance to try staking every 16 seconds.

So 60 outputs means the client will do 60 sha256 (?) hashes every 16 seconds. That shouldn't cause noticeable load at all.

[ranlo]

Thanks for breaking this all down. This also helps explain why I have somewhat high CPU usage when a client gets to 60+ transactions as opposed to having just one (after I merge).

So really it's just a battle of finding that perfect balance between server efficiency and reward efficiency.

Each output gets one chance to try staking every 16 seconds.

So 60 outputs means the client will do 60 sha256 (?) hashes every 16 seconds. That shouldn't cause noticeable load at all.

Not with CLAM (ENRG is the one that causes issues). It's reading from the HDD though I think, and my HDD has gotten extremely slow as of late. Read speed is only 3.8 MB/s. I really need to finish getting things cleaned up/backed up so I can reformat it and hopefully it'll help resolve some of this.

[Domrada]

Hello everyone, Red here. So, everyone complains about liquidity of the CLAM market. I feel your pain. If all participants, particularly the large ones, were acting in line with rational self-interest, it would be less of a problem. My naive hope is that some brief education about asset portfolio management will help to correct this.

Rebalancing works like this. If you invest in CLAMS, you establish for yourself a basket of at least 2 assets. A simple basket might include a 50/50 balance of CLAM and BTC. Suppose your basket is worth 1 btc. At a price of .005, you would have 100 CLAM and 0.5 BTC.

If the CLAM price drops by 20% to .004, now you have .4 BTC worth of CLAM and .5 BTC worth of BTC. To rebalance, you would buy 12.5 clams at a cost of .05 BTC, so that your basket now contains 112.5 CLAM and .45 BTC, a total value of .9 BTC.

If the CLAM price goes back up to .005, now you have .5625 worth of CLAM and .45 BTC worth of BTC. To rebalance, you would sell 11.25 clams at a cost of .05625, so that your basket now contains 101.25 CLAM and .50625 BTC, a total value of 1.0125 BTC. The .0125 BTC is what is known as the rebalancing bonus.

You can put up limit orders for how many clams you would buy or sell if the price were to reach a certain point. This adds liquidity.

Rebalancing is a well established asset management technique (not Red's hair-brained scheme). All professional asset managers do this. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebalancing_investments . The benefits of rebalancing include risk control and the rebalancing bonus. The rebalancing bonus is compounded by the market maker bonus when the market is illiquid, as is the case with the CLAM market.

If rebalancing still sounds like too much of a hassle to you, despite the selfish benefits, consider that you could be contributing to the liquidity of the market for everyone's benefit.