[ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"

[ymod123]

Have you tried the methods above? You can also try creating a clams.conf file in your clams data directory and use the addnode lines I specified. Been working for me no problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9369794#msg9369794

not yet i will try it now tnx..

[ymod123]

Have you tried the methods above? You can also try creating a clams.conf file in your clams data directory and use the addnode lines I specified. Been working for me no problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9369794#msg9369794

i tried the addnotes you listed in i add listen=0 
is noy working for me

[ymod123]

do i need to delete peers.dat?

[SuperClam]

do i need to delete peers.dat?

Feel free to swing into freenode irc #clams, we will try and get you straightened out

[MemoryShock]

I completely forgot about this one.  I might have a BTC wallet that works with this.  What are the average amount coins sent to each wallet?  23?

[chilly2k]

I completely forgot about this one.  I might have a BTC wallet that works with this.  What are the average amount coins sent to each wallet?  23?

    I averaged 4.1 per.  But I didn't have much in any of my wallets. 

[Trololoh]

Have you tried the methods above? You can also try creating a clams.conf file in your clams data directory and use the addnode lines I specified. Been working for me no problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9369794#msg9369794

i tried the addnotes you listed in i add listen=0 
is noy working for me

It should be :
Listen=1

[ymod123]

Have you tried the methods above? You can also try creating a clams.conf file in your clams data directory and use the addnode lines I specified. Been working for me no problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9369794#msg9369794

i tried the addnotes you listed in i add listen=0 
is noy working for me

It should be :
Listen=1

i tried it says syncronizing to network 11073 block remaining ...but it seems stuck..

[SuperClam]

Have you tried the methods above? You can also try creating a clams.conf file in your clams data directory and use the addnode lines I specified. Been working for me no problem.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9369794#msg9369794

i tried the addnotes you listed in i add listen=0 
is noy working for me

It should be :
Listen=1

i tried it says syncronizing to network 11073 block remaining ...but it seems stuck..

ymod,
It is difficult to troubleshoot here on the forum.  Please stop into freenode irc so we can get you working again: #clams.
If you don't have an irc client you can use this link: http://www.clamclient.com/irc/

[MemoryShock]

I completely forgot about this one.  I might have a BTC wallet that works with this.  What are the average amount coins sent to each wallet?  23?

    I averaged 4.1 per.  But I didn't have much in any of my wallets. 

Than my next question is this...what is the point for 4 clams?

No offense to the dev.  I remember when I first read about this and thought it was a novel idea.  It just seems like the effort to claim the clams is better spent elsewhere...

[dooglus]

Than my next question is this...what is the point for 4 clams?

No offense to the dev.

I remember when I first read about this and thought it was a novel idea.

It just seems like the effort to claim the clams is better spent elsewhere.

What is the point of those 4 sentences?

No offence to the poster.

It just seems like the effort to post that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Would you prefer if every address was given 40 CLAMs? Or 400? 4000?

Do you realise it wouldn't have made any difference at all, since it would effectively just be a relabelling? Much like using "bits" instead of "bitcoins", and having one be worth a million of the other.

[chilly2k]

I completely forgot about this one.  I might have a BTC wallet that works with this.  What are the average amount coins sent to each wallet?  23?

    I averaged 4.1 per.  But I didn't have much in any of my wallets. 

Than my next question is this...what is the point for 4 clams?

No offense to the dev.  I remember when I first read about this and thought it was a novel idea.  It just seems like the effort to claim the clams is better spent elsewhere...

   That was also for a very small balance, and the total for about 20 minutes work was 12.3 clams.  Plus this is a pretty active community and I'm a sucker for POS coins.  And I liked the way they did the distribution.    And as time goes on, and the value goes up, you might just decide it's now worth your time to dig up those clams.  Just hope you don't delete those wallets before that happens. 

[MemoryShock]

What is the point of those 4 sentences?

No offence to the poster.

It just seems like the effort to post that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Would you prefer if every address was given 40 CLAMs? Or 400? 4000?

Do you realise it wouldn't have made any difference at all, since it would effectively just be a relabelling? Much like using "bits" instead of "bitcoins", and having one be worth a million of the other.

It was an honest question/rumination.

I don't really like getting involved in threads if I don't intend on being a part of the community.  If the difference is moot and the Clams are better left unclaimed as opposed to purchasing on an exchange than why wouldn't I do that?  Would that not be better for the community at this point?

Honest question...and I have no preference on the bits debate since I have no issues with the distribution model.  I was posting at that time with a 'bit' of ignorance which has been correctedish...

[SuperClam]

What is the point of those 4 sentences?
No offence to the poster.
It just seems like the effort to post that would have been better spent elsewhere.
Would you prefer if every address was given 40 CLAMs? Or 400? 4000?
Do you realise it wouldn't have made any difference at all, since it would effectively just be a relabelling? Much like using "bits" instead of "bitcoins", and having one be worth a million of the other.

It was an honest question/rumination.
I don't really like getting involved in threads if I don't intend on being a part of the community.  If the difference is moot and the Clams are better left unclaimed as opposed to purchasing on an exchange than why wouldn't I do that?  Would that not be better for the community at this point?
Honest question...and I have no preference on the bits debate since I have no issues with the distribution model.  I was posting at that time with a 'bit' of ignorance which has been correctedish...

I suppose the answer to that question is a personal one.


A couple of things to remember:

There were over 3.1 million balance holding addresses when the chains were analyzed in May.

Every time coins are sent, your wallet creates a "change" address in the background.  This suggests that many users will receive more than one distribution each.  Especially those who follow best practices, such as creating a unique receive address for each incoming transaction.

Most "altcoins" are held by a few people, and thus the percentage that each of those people hold of the total money supply is certainly larger.

At the same time, the total CLAMS in circulation estimate is still below 150,000 the last time I checked... suggesting that though the number might be small, the distribution at the present moment is also quite small.

Just a few thoughts  
Welcome to the CLAMS thread, MemoryShock.

[ymod123]

any new wallet update? my wallet still not synching...

[ButtCrack]

any new wallet update? my wallet still not synching...

I assume you have connections and run windows ?

Try this :
Locate directory of wallet.dat.
Delete everything except wallet.dat.
Copy wallet.dat to a safe place.
Create text file with name "Clam.conf" in that directory.
Open text file with notepad and insert follwing lines :

connect=84.194.247.232:31174
connect=23.92.210.2:31174
connect=54.75.227.85:38343
connect=104.131.59.43:53103
connect=77.247.181.165:65190
connect=162.218.65.19:45406
connect=96.246.211.120:19476
connect=83.86.189.163:58108
connect=93.103.131.59:53324
connect=71.188.55.212:31174
connect=76.94.201.185:36079
connect=109.195.211.62:50318
connect=86.58.104.183:49860
connect=203.20.114.252:31174
connect=108.195.138.58:60527
connect=193.166.139.206:55786
connect=78.134.3.254:63941
connect=198.245.60.38:53497
connect=24.96.235.190:61000
connect=108.237.13.94:34724
connect=71.241.130.246:31174
connect=198.245.60.38:55364
connect=203.174.191.230:50533
connect=69.131.59.58:4719
connect=24.67.30.88:51620
connect=89.88.199.104:51398
connect=37.209.45.163:49312
connect=108.227.82.11:50317
connect=108.91.73.3:63989
connect=73.55.207.245:64773
connect=80.195.253.183:31174
connect=95.91.224.82:11614

These nodes are on the right chain, and should get your wallet synced.
Open help > debug window so you can check block count going up.
If it does not, wait for 30 min - 1 hour.
Still not going up ?
Close wallet and restart.
Repeat if syncing stalls.
Let me know if it worked.

[almightyruler]

connect=84.194.247.232:31174
connect=23.92.210.2:31174
connect=54.75.227.85:38343
connect=104.131.59.43:53103
[...]

Just a quick note: if the IP doesn't have the default port then it's probably an outbound connection, and any attempt to connect to that IP (inbound) on that port is likely to fail. Best to omit the port when specifying addnode/connect parameters. I understand this was probably a copy and paste of your getpeerinfo output, just pointing out that potential problem, for future reference.

[tryphe]

You probably want to use -addnode and not -connect, because connect implies a set exclusive peer list (i.e. you won't connect to any other peers). Or you can just remove them from the .conf after you load it, as the valid ones will now be in peers.dat

[Thirdspace]

You probably want to use -addnode and not -connect, because connect implies a set exclusive peer list (i.e. you won't connect to any other peers). Or you can just remove them from the .conf after you load it, as the valid ones will now be in peers.dat

maybe that is what he intended to do... only connect to exclusive peer (that he believes on the main/correct chain)
I actually tried removing .conf after that and started the client again, and it still re-connects to certain clients on wrong fork again
I think because it always ask for more new peers from the connected peers to propagate the network
How can I tell? because when I removed .conf my upload bandwidth went crazy again...
all connected peers are all different than those exclusive list I connected earlier
and I noticed 1 of the connected peer height is way below (is at 173217) and stay like that for days as I remember
also a few connected nodes are at "startingheight" : -1 I doubt that means he just started.
What exactly height -1 means here?
in .conf file, is there a way to block certain peer? something like perma-banned until we removed it in the future

[SuperClam]

We will be releasing an update this weekend which will fix at least three ongoing issues/attacks on the CLAM network - including the flooding issue.


I know it is difficult, but please attempt to cope via some of the suggested methods in the thread until then.  About 95% of the testing has been completed and the update is right around the corner.