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

[CryptoPromotions]

Too late to get some clams? I'm hungry.

 

[1714195849]

1714195849

[ymod123]

Too late to get some clams? I'm hungry.

 

right on time....

[almightyruler]

So, you have 2,335/1,000,000 odds (467/200,000) of hitting a lotto block.

Must have been my head that was the problem, then. I assumed (wrongly) that the reward for every block would vary. Thanks for the math to prove it.

I can now see some blocks that would have - if we were already on the lotto system - generated a reward higher than 0.1:

Code:

07/12/14 17:10:47 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=989474017103111cb636 seed=17943395 random=2129073648 randCoefficient=0.991427176 nCoefficient=0.000000000 nSubsidy=0.10000001
07/12/14 19:04:53 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=ad6472e8b0fa20a17657 seed=34215781 random=2143547323 randCoefficient=0.998167006 nCoefficient=0.004070347 nSubsidy=4.16993978
07/12/14 19:08:11 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=22dd16b4b37f1493c1ec seed=21576734 random=2134171368 randCoefficient=0.993800987 nCoefficient=0.000000008 nSubsidy=0.10000792

I'll wait until the fork to confirm that I've properly matched hashes and blocks, but I'll repeat my concern: it appears to be possible to calculate the reward in advance, therefore it is simple to add a conditional to only try to mint PoS when it's worth it.

[SuperClam]

Too late to get some clams? I'm hungry.
 

right on time....

Indeed; right on time indeed

Must have been my head that was the problem, then. I assumed (wrongly) that the reward for every block would vary. Thanks for the math to prove it.
I can now see some blocks that would have - if we were already on the lotto system - generated a reward higher than 0.1:
I'll wait until the fork to confirm that I've properly matched hashes and blocks, but I'll repeat my concern: it appears to be possible to calculate the reward in advance, therefore it is simple to add a conditional to only try to mint PoS when it's worth it.

Likely a very reasonable concern, as I have previously mentioned.  
We never claimed to be perfect  

Remember though, lottery blocks are quite rare and the standard reward of 0.1 likely accounts for quite a decent percentage on most outputs considering it can be staked every 8 hours.  It wouldn't take many missed attempts to quickly erode the gains you might make from such a strategy.  We have been looking at ways to utilize a system where the current block's reward coinStake is signable by the previous block's creator - essentially requiring a double stake to have any influence.  There are concerns with using the current block, as 'choosing' not to stake could have similar repercussions in that situation as well.

In the meantime, we will continue to improve the CLAMClient; thank users like yourself for identifying possible concerns so that we know where we need to improve; and keep-on-clammin'.

We anticipate some type of improvement to the randomization system in the next update.  
You seem knowledgeable... Sure would be priceless to get the community involved in the project on git.

A better CLAMClient benefits us all,

SuperCLAM.

[SuperClam]

100 Blocks to the Lottery Update Fork.

Blocks are crawling....

This is precisely why we wanted to increase the incentive to consistently stake on the network....

[xploited]

So, you have 2,335/1,000,000 odds (467/200,000) of hitting a lotto block.

Must have been my head that was the problem, then. I assumed (wrongly) that the reward for every block would vary. Thanks for the math to prove it.

I can now see some blocks that would have - if we were already on the lotto system - generated a reward higher than 0.1:

Code:

07/12/14 17:10:47 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=989474017103111cb636 seed=17943395 random=2129073648 randCoefficient=0.991427176 nCoefficient=0.000000000 nSubsidy=0.10000001
07/12/14 19:04:53 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=ad6472e8b0fa20a17657 seed=34215781 random=2143547323 randCoefficient=0.998167006 nCoefficient=0.004070347 nSubsidy=4.16993978
07/12/14 19:08:11 DebugProofOfStakeReward hash=22dd16b4b37f1493c1ec seed=21576734 random=2134171368 randCoefficient=0.993800987 nCoefficient=0.000000008 nSubsidy=0.10000792

I'll wait until the fork to confirm that I've properly matched hashes and blocks, but I'll repeat my concern: it appears to be possible to calculate the reward in advance, therefore it is simple to add a conditional to only try to mint PoS when it's worth it.

I think you might be able to migrate the problem by setting a maxium stake time and resetting it once it reached the max. It would make staking more competitive (I think) and not really allow you to just sit around and not submit your blocks.  If you were to wait to long then the advantage of not submitting would be lost as you would be on the same level as everyone when the reward block came around, giving you no advantage.

Its just an ideaI had, might not work.

thoughts?

[istvandv]

block 33920 now

dont forget to update wallet and go clamming for pearls

[kbroadfoot]

block 33920 now

dont forget to update wallet and go clamming for pearls

Clams and pearls... is like krill and seals...

[SuperClam]

block 33920 now
dont forget to update wallet and go clamming for pearls

Clams and pearls... is like krill and seals...

Only 30 Blocks to the Update

[kidyubyub]

When I click the link for the Windows wallet update 1.4.2b, I get this as a file download: CLAMClient_1.4.2b_Windows.tar.gz. Is this incorrect, or am I doing something wrong?

[SuperClam]

When I click the link for the Windows wallet update 1.4.2b, I get this as a file download: CLAMClient_1.4.2b_Windows.tar.gz. Is this incorrect, or am I doing something wrong?

Not at all, it is compressed to make it download quicker.
Most standard decompression programs should work (7zip, etc.).

If you still can't figure it out, I am happy to package up a zip file for folks!

[SuperClam]

We are officially staking lottery blocks!

Woohoo!

[kidyubyub]

When I click the link for the Windows wallet update 1.4.2b, I get this as a file download: CLAMClient_1.4.2b_Windows.tar.gz. Is this incorrect, or am I doing something wrong?

Not at all, it is compressed to make it download quicker.
Most standard decompression programs should work (7zip, etc.).

If you still can't figure it out, I am happy to package up a zip file for folks!

I shall install 7Zip. It was the only computer on which I didn't have it installed!! Figures. Thanks!

[SuperClam]

When I click the link for the Windows wallet update 1.4.2b, I get this as a file download: CLAMClient_1.4.2b_Windows.tar.gz. Is this incorrect, or am I doing something wrong?

Not at all, it is compressed to make it download quicker.
Most standard decompression programs should work (7zip, etc.).

If you still can't figure it out, I am happy to package up a zip file for folks!

I shall install 7Zip. It was the only computer on which I didn't have it installed!! Figures. Thanks!

If anyone stakes a lottery block over 0.1 post in the forum here!

Let everyone see you basking in your CLAMS!

[dooglus]

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!

[SuperClam]

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!

LoL, Winner Winner, CLAMicken Dinner!

Okay, not 'huge', but a special block none-the-less


The target of the network at launch was to hit ~1% yearly inflation based on the total money supply.
Of coarse, CLAMS is odd in that the total money supply is unknown.

If you assume that the majority of CLAMS are claimed at some unknown time in the future (Less non-retrievable coins of coarse), then the claiming of the coins would not be considered inflation -> they already exist on the chain and can be claimed at any given moment.  This isn't accurate. 

If you assume they will not be claimed, then the act of claiming the coins itself is a sort of inflation.  This isn't accurate either.

So which do you go with?
If you choose to not count the un-claimed coins, then estimates of "inflation" are entirely useless.  Many people claiming, or a large service claiming (such as Poloniex's giveaway) would entirely destroy any attempt at an estimate.
If you choose to count un-claimed coins, under the logic that they exist and could enter the system at any moment, then you greatly under estimate yearly inflation.

Frankly, it is a very difficult question; and there isn't really any "prior art" or standard way of dealing with it that we are aware of.
I am choosing to speak of it as if the CLAMS on chain are CLAMS in existence, because they can enter the money supply at any moment, and that is the only solid immovable reference point from which to function.

So, if you don't count CLAMS possible; you're yearly inflation numbers will be much higher than ~1%.
But then, you would also have to count every CLAM claimed as inflation - which we haven't established a way of getting a peg on yet.
In addition, the reward would become woefully inadequate to sustain the network, requiring another hard-fork immediately, with even a moderate spike in popularity (causing another wave of folks to "claim").

[almightyruler]

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')

[Zer0Sum]

The target of the network at launch was to hit ~1% yearly inflation based on the total money supply.
Of coarse, CLAMS is odd in that the total money supply is unknown.

If you assume that the majority of CLAMS are claimed at some unknown time in the future (Less non-retrievable coins of coarse), then the claiming of the coins would not be considered inflation -> they already exist on the chain and can be claimed at any given moment.  This isn't accurate. 

If you assume they will not be claimed, then the act of claiming the coins itself is a sort of inflation.  This isn't accurate either.

So which do you go with?
If you choose to not count the un-claimed coins, then estimates of "inflation" are entirely useless.  Many people claiming, or a large service claiming (such as Poloniex's giveaway) would entirely destroy any attempt at an estimate.
If you choose to count un-claimed coins, under the logic that they exist and could enter the system at any moment, then you greatly under estimate yearly inflation.

Frankly, it is a very difficult question; and there isn't really any "prior art" or standard way of dealing with it that we are aware of.
I am choosing to speak of it as if the CLAMS on chain are CLAMS in existence, because they can enter the money supply at any moment, and that is the only solid immovable reference point from which to function.

So, if you don't count CLAMS possible; you're yearly inflation numbers will be much higher than ~1%.
But then, you would also have to count every CLAM claimed as inflation - which we haven't established a way of getting a peg on yet.
In addition, the reward would become woefully inadequate to sustain the network, requiring another hard-fork immediately, with even a moderate spike in popularity (causing another wave of folks to "claim").

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 this context discussion of 1% staking and "inflation" is absurd...
There are coins staking 50%, 100%, 200%, now one nut just launched a 750% stake coin.

This is a promotion driven business...
You are completing against at least 500 coins of which 90% will die.

[dooglus]

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.

[dooglus]

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!

LoL, Winner Winner, CLAMicken Dinner!

Okay, not 'huge', but a special block none-the-less

I got another:

http://khashier.com:2750/block/1ccbfe52a98733d4e804b005f298537dabdb61679662879c9299b51dbfc97969

This time it was a massive 0.10010956 reward!

I added some debug to see how it comes up with the subsidy amount:

Code:

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.