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

[almightyruler]

I know you are a fair guy and go to great lengths to make sure games/coins are fair.  At this point would you say CLAM is fair to the average staker outside Just-Dice?  If the game isn't fair why would anyone try to play it?  

I charge a hefty 10% fee for staking. That leaves lots of room for competition. I keep hearing rumours of competing staking pools opening, but never see anything come of it.

I could continually increase JD's staking fees until it has less than 50% of the CLAMs, but I suspect that would be seen as me trying to grab more CLAMs for myself. How could such a thing work? Maybe the fee goes up 1% each day at midnight if we have >50% of all active CLAMs, and down by 1% if we have less than 40%, and we just leave it to change day by day. Eventually (after less than a month, I guess) we would have less than half the CLAMs - or we would be taking 40% of all stakes. Does that seem more fair? It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

I was going to suggest sending the excess to something charitable, but that could become complicated.

How about something more simple: send anything over your 10% fee to a provably unspendable address. That way you're still reducing the chances of CLAM being controlled by JD, but you're not profiting from it.

[almightyruler]

Still having problems with ORPHAN BLOCK 751

I think I've figured out what has happened this time. The client accepted block 516305, but seems to have completely ignored block 516306... and only that block. Subsequent blocks were received, but have been marked as orphans, since there is the gap between 516305 and 516307.

I ended up restarting with a virgin db and a bootstrap.dat, and the same thing happened again, but almost immediately...

ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK 394, prev=150bbc3b26c30450c72982a4ddd76849f27772f789d4b5547cae84deb35c6916
SetBestChain: new best=ee238d43767cae1369976b95d725a0fefcb43c38eb472fab85bb4518ced9f5e8  height=56532  trust=181383289202  blocktrust=1783141  date=08/05/14 12:33:40
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK 395, prev=1f04a53561e711ed5db2bd3d161a038aa7f537ec203cac8097dbcbe71ae60d21
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK 396, prev=0c86aef87def03c22d332206bfbc3076b7205d24fe96462ce46fd1cdbecff6cc
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK 397, prev=d7ab32165d83bbdb17706272736e8bffff63dfcd85e497fd30900137d247e43e
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : VerifySignature failed on coinstake 010c7653afd5e0d62dee0b077285749ac5e6bbd2e35a6091c333dee69778d4b9


Client is stuck at block 56532, rejected transaction 010c7653afd5e0d62dee0b077285749ac5e6bbd2e35a6091c333dee69778d4b9 is from block 56533, so it never accepts the block.

Given that it's not failing at a consistent spot I'm starting to wonder if there's some obscure bug with my OS/hardware (it's an Odroid C1/ARM CPU so probably not so well tested) or maybe a hardware issue.

It's important to note that transaction 010c7653afd5e0d62dee0b077285749ac5e6bbd2e35a6091c333dee69778d4b9 is repeatedly rejected (1679 times in this instance). Is this cached locally, or is it rejecting a "fresh" block from a peer each time? This could help determine whether it's a random bit flip that gets committed to disk, dooming that block forever, or there's some other reason it is repeatedly failing verification.

[SuperClam]

I know you are a fair guy and go to great lengths to make sure games/coins are fair.  At this point would you say CLAM is fair to the average staker outside Just-Dice?  If the game isn't fair why would anyone try to play it?  

I charge a hefty 10% fee for staking. That leaves lots of room for competition. I keep hearing rumours of competing staking pools opening, but never see anything come of it.
I could continually increase JD's staking fees until it has less than 50% of the CLAMs, but I suspect that would be seen as me trying to grab more CLAMs for myself. How could such a thing work? Maybe the fee goes up 1% each day at midnight if we have >50% of all active CLAMs, and down by 1% if we have less than 40%, and we just leave it to change day by day. Eventually (after less than a month, I guess) we would have less than half the CLAMs - or we would be taking 40% of all stakes. Does that seem more fair? It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

I was going to suggest sending the excess to something charitable, but that could become complicated.
How about something more simple: send anything over your 10% fee to a provably unspendable address. That way you're still reducing the chances of CLAM being controlled by JD, but you're not profiting from it.

Burning profits is wasteful and stupid.
CLAM, Dooglus and even you will be much better off with a P2Pool.

An interesting idea, to be sure.

However, I don't particularly agree with a private service being expected to change it's fee structure - or anything else for that matter.

Treating symptoms, as opposed to solving problems, rarely provides the results you really want.

I would much prefer some pledges of bounty toward an implementation like p2pool; accompanied by a feasibility study as to the possibility and results of implementing it.

...
I've not looked at the Bitcoin p2pool stuff for a year or more, but from what I remember it used to give relatively poor returns compared to mining at a centralised pool. I don't remember why, or even if anyone ever figured out why. Did it ever become economically competitive with the centralised pools?

I think this is an important facet of the conversation.
If it doesn't make economic sense - the idea is DOA.

I seem to remember some conversation some time ago about making p2pool mandatory, or at least de-facto standard, for BTC.

CLAM is in a unique position where the number of stakeholders is relatively small in comparison.
If p2pool was built-in to the client and the mandatory process of staking, everyone would be on an even playing field - regardless of potential economic issues.

Just an idea, and another topic for a more in-depth discussion and review of the idea.

[dooglus]

I know you are a fair guy and go to great lengths to make sure games/coins are fair.  At this point would you say CLAM is fair to the average staker outside Just-Dice?  If the game isn't fair why would anyone try to play it?  

I charge a hefty 10% fee for staking. That leaves lots of room for competition. I keep hearing rumours of competing staking pools opening, but never see anything come of it.

I could continually increase JD's staking fees until it has less than 50% of the CLAMs, but I suspect that would be seen as me trying to grab more CLAMs for myself. How could such a thing work? Maybe the fee goes up 1% each day at midnight if we have >50% of all active CLAMs, and down by 1% if we have less than 40%, and we just leave it to change day by day. Eventually (after less than a month, I guess) we would have less than half the CLAMs - or we would be taking 40% of all stakes. Does that seem more fair? It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

I was going to suggest sending the excess to something charitable, but that could become complicated.

How about something more simple: send anything over your 10% fee to a provably unspendable address. That way you're still reducing the chances of CLAM being controlled by JD, but you're not profiting from it.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against earning extra commission. I wouldn't want to burn it. Increasing the commission rate could well decrease the commission I get to take - if increasing it from 10% to 20% causes the bankroll to more than halve, I end up with less commission than I am currently taking. Burning half of it in that instance would make no sense at all.

I hear on IRC that there will be a new staking pool released soon with a 5% fee. If that takes half the JD bankroll then our 51% woes are over.

[BayAreaCoins]

I know you are a fair guy and go to great lengths to make sure games/coins are fair.  At this point would you say CLAM is fair to the average staker outside Just-Dice?  If the game isn't fair why would anyone try to play it?  

I charge a hefty 10% fee for staking. That leaves lots of room for competition. I keep hearing rumours of competing staking pools opening, but never see anything come of it.

I could continually increase JD's staking fees until it has less than 50% of the CLAMs, but I suspect that would be seen as me trying to grab more CLAMs for myself. How could such a thing work? Maybe the fee goes up 1% each day at midnight if we have >50% of all active CLAMs, and down by 1% if we have less than 40%, and we just leave it to change day by day. Eventually (after less than a month, I guess) we would have less than half the CLAMs - or we would be taking 40% of all stakes. Does that seem more fair? It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

I was going to suggest sending the excess to something charitable, but that could become complicated.

How about something more simple: send anything over your 10% fee to a provably unspendable address. That way you're still reducing the chances of CLAM being controlled by JD, but you're not profiting from it.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against earning extra commission. I wouldn't want to burn it. Increasing the commission rate could well decrease the commission I get to take - if increasing it from 10% to 20% causes the bankroll to more than halve, I end up with less commission than I am currently taking. Burning half of it in that instance would make no sense at all.

I hear on IRC that there will be a new staking pool released soon with a 5% fee. If that takes half the JD bankroll then our 51% woes are over.

I saw this pop up on the Clamcoin reddit today.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Clamcoin/comments/3a9w9y/clamstakernet_the_easiest_way_to_stake_your_clams/

Hopefully they set up a ref system

I haven't tested them yet.

EDIT:  I don't even see where their site shows the fees... would proceed with care!

[tspacepilot]

Guys, there's a problem with the main clam website.  I go to the OP of this thread, I click on official website looking to download the client,  I see gian pictures oceany things.  15 seconds later, I figure out that there's a hidden nav-bar on the right of the page.  Okay, I open the nav bar,  I see "download clamclient"  I think "yes!".  I click, I see a giant picture of an shipping vessel.  I see text above the vessel "download clamclient", but this is not a link.  I start pressing arrow keys, maybe there's a link below the tanker pic---nothing moves.  I find many many many social media links about clamclient in the in nav-bar, still haven't found where to wget a tar of the client or the source.  I'm not stupid.  I'm using firefox.  Can I get the text version of this page or something?

EDIT: ohmygod, I finally found it.  If i rehide the nav bar on the right, there's like 4 pixel scrollbar that allows the page to scroll down.  Why didn't my arrow keys work?  I'm leaving this post up in case whoever runs the clam site considers this useful feedback about my experience with the website.  I found many large and beautiful pics (which was cool), but it was hard to find any text or links (which was annoying).

[SuperClam]

Guys, there's a problem with the main clam website.  I go to the OP of this thread, I click on official website looking to download the client,  I see gian pictures oceany things.  15 seconds later, I figure out that there's a hidden nav-bar on the right of the page.  Okay, I open the nav bar,  I see "download clamclient"  I think "yes!".  I click, I see a giant picture of an shipping vessel.  I see text above the vessel "download clamclient", but this is not a link.  I start pressing arrow keys, maybe there's a link below the tanker pic---nothing moves.  I find many many many social media links about clamclient in the in nav-bar, still haven't found where to wget a tar of the client or the source.  I'm not stupid.  I'm using firefox.  Can I get the text version of this page or something?
EDIT: ohmygod, I finally found it.  If i rehide the nav bar on the right, there's like 4 pixel scrollbar that allows the page to scroll down.  Why didn't my arrow keys work?  I'm leaving this post up in case whoever runs the clam site considers this useful feedback about my experience with the website.  I found many large and beautiful pics (which was cool), but it was hard to find any text or links (which was annoying).

The official website is a mess.
Currently working on pulling in some API stuff to make the new web site more useful, before replacing it.

That said, arrow keys seem to work fine for me on Firefox.

[tspacepilot]

I don't know why the arrow keys weren't working for me.  Maybe the wrong part of the window was in focus or something.  Anyway, I decided to clone the repo from git and build it.  I run "./autogen.sh && ./configure" and I note that I need the header files for libdb.    I'm on debian jessie and I'm looking at the build instructions in doc/build-unix.md, it says to add oldstable main to my repos, so I add this:

Code:

deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/pub/debian/ oldstable main

But I'm not finding the libdb packages which the readme says I should find:

Code:

E: Package 'libdb4.8-dev' has no installation candidate
E: Package 'libdb4.8++-dev' has no installation candidate

So, obviously I could look for the header for the berkeley db somewhere else, and I can do this, no problem.  I just thought I'd update you guys about the instructions in your readme, maybe they're not so current (or maybe I'm doing something wrong, hehe).

Cheers

[dooglus]

I think this is an important facet of the conversation.
If it doesn't make economic sense - the idea is DOA.

I seem to remember some conversation some time ago about making p2pool mandatory, or at least de-facto standard, for BTC.

CLAM is in a unique position where the number of stakeholders is relatively small in comparison.
If p2pool was built-in to the client and the mandatory process of staking, everyone would be on an even playing field - regardless of potential economic issues.

It has been years since I last looked at p2pool, but from what I remember, it works like this:


Centralised pools: Mining is hard. You need to find a block which hashes less than a very low target, T. Traditional mining pools allow people to work together by giving them easier work to do: the members of the pool are asked to find blocks which hash to less than a higher target, 1000*T (say). This is 1000 times easier, and so happens about 1000 times more often than the pool finds blocks. Each time a member solves one of these easier blocks, it reports it to the pool as proof that it is trying. The pool makes sure that the reward is going to the pool's addresses, counts up how many of these easy blocks (called 'shares') each member solves, and when someone does eventually solve a real block the pool splits the reward to the members in some way based on their history.

Problem: the centralised pools get big, and end up threatening the network. The pools decide which transactions to include in the blocks which gives the pool operator the power to double spend. The members also have to trust that they actually will distribute the rewards fairly, and so on. All the usual problems with centralisation.

p2pool: In the same way that Bitcoin decentralised currency by the use of a blockchain, p2pool does the same for mining pools. Instead of a central mining pool tracking how many shares each miner has accumulated, there is a blockchain which tracks it. It's entirely separate from the Bitcoin blockchain. A new block is added to the chain each time a miner solves a share. Each miner checks the last N blocks in the sharechain, calculates how much of the block reward should go to each miner, and sets the coinbase accordingly. When a miner receives a new share from a peer, he will check the coinbase of the share to make sure that the peer is distributing the coins correctly. If so, the share will be added to the chain. Eventually one of the shares will also be an actual Bitcoin block, and once broadcast all the miners who solved any of the last N shares will be paid.


I don't see anything there that couldn't be made to work with CLAM. Some thoughts:

1) p2pool removes the need for a central pool by having the coinbase in each share pay out the block reward to all the contributing miners. CLAM has a rule that staking transactions must pay out to the same address as they come from. But upon further investigation this is only enforced for the first output. It's possible to make this kind of staking transaction which pays to two different addresses. And so it should be possible to pay to as many addresses as we like, so long as each miner pays themselves first.

2) The whole reason p2pool is being discussed with respect to CLAM is that it is thought to be a way of decentralising things, and getting rid of the "orphan" problem. The orphan problem is that JD orphans a lot of other people's staked blocks. JD has 75% of the staking weight, and there are only 4 chances to stake per minute (due to the 16 second granularity). When a non-JD staker finds a block, there's a 1/4 * 75% = 3/16 chance that JD finds a block in the same timeslot. And there's a 75% chance that JD will find the next block too. In the event that two stakers find a block in the same timeslot, each miner considers their own block to be the valid one, and attempts to stake the next block on top of it, so if JD finds the next block it orphans the other miner's block. So that's a 9/64 chance that any non-JD block is orphaned by JD. That's 14%.

That's too many, and so can p2pool help fix that? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that instead of orphaning 14% of blocks on the CLAM blockchain, JD will orphan 14% of shares on the sharechain. And the end result will be the same.

Is that right? If so, is this even worth pursuing?

[xploited]

I think this is an important facet of the conversation.
If it doesn't make economic sense - the idea is DOA.

I seem to remember some conversation some time ago about making p2pool mandatory, or at least de-facto standard, for BTC.

CLAM is in a unique position where the number of stakeholders is relatively small in comparison.
If p2pool was built-in to the client and the mandatory process of staking, everyone would be on an even playing field - regardless of potential economic issues.

It has been years since I last looked at p2pool, but from what I remember, it works like this:


Centralised pools: Mining is hard. You need to find a block which hashes less than a very low target, T. Traditional mining pools allow people to work together by giving them easier work to do: the members of the pool are asked to find blocks which hash to less than a higher target, 1000*T (say). This is 1000 times easier, and so happens about 1000 times more often than the pool finds blocks. Each time a member solves one of these easier blocks, it reports it to the pool as proof that it is trying. The pool makes sure that the reward is going to the pool's addresses, counts up how many of these easy blocks (called 'shares') each member solves, and when someone does eventually solve a real block the pool splits the reward to the members in some way based on their history.

Problem: the centralised pools get big, and end up threatening the network. The pools decide which transactions to include in the blocks which gives the pool operator the power to double spend. The members also have to trust that they actually will distribute the rewards fairly, and so on. All the usual problems with centralisation.

p2pool: In the same way that Bitcoin decentalised currency by the use of a blockchain, p2pool does the same for mining pools. Instead of a central mining pool tracking how many shares each miner has accumulated, there is a blockchain which tracks it. It's entirely separate from the Bitcoin blockchain. A new block is added to the chain each time a miner solves a share. Each miner checks the last N blocks in the sharechain, calculates how much of the block reward should go to each miner, and sets the coinbase accordingly. When a miner receives a new share from a peer, he will check the coinbase of the share to make sure that the peer is distributing the coins correctly. If so, the share will be added to the chain. Eventually one of the shares will also be an actual Bitcoin block, and once broadcast all the miners who solved any of the last N shares will be paid.


I don't see anything there that couldn't be made to work with CLAM. Some thoughts:

1) p2pool removes the need for a central pool by having the coinbase in each share pay out the block reward to all the contributing miners. CLAM has a rule that staking transactions must pay out to the same address as they come from. But upon further investigation this is only enforced for the first output. It's possible to make this kind of staking transaction which pays to two different addresses. And so it should be possible to pay to as many addresses as we like, so long as each miner pays themselves first.

2) The whole reason p2pool is being discussed with respect to CLAM is that it is thought to be a way of decentralising things, and getting rid of the "orphan" problem. The orphan problem is that JD orphans a lot of other people's staked blocks. JD has 75% of the staking weight, and there are only 4 chances to stake per minute (due to the 16 second granularity). When a non-JD staker finds a block, there's a 1/4 * 75% = 3/16 chance that JD finds a block in the same timeslot. And there's a 75% chance that JD will find the next block too. In the event that two stakers find a block in the same timeslot, each miner considers their own block to be the valid one, and attempts to stake the next block on top of it, so if JD finds the next block it orphans the other miner's block. So that's a 9/64 chance that any non-JD block is orphaned by JD. That's 14%.

That's too many, and so can p2pool help fix that? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that instead of orphaning 14% of blocks on the CLAM blockchain, JD will orphan 14% of shares on the sharechain. And the end result will be the same.

Is that right? If so, is this even worth pursuing?

Thats an excellent explanation of how p2pool works. 

I'm working hard to find a flaw in your logic as I was hopeful p2pool would help with these problems.. but i dont see any. 

[dooglus]

Thats an excellent explanation of how p2pool works. 

Thanks. I was having a hard time remembering how it worked, and figured writing it up would help clarify it for myself and for others. I can't promise what I wrote is still how it works, but I'm guessing it's mostly correct.

I'm working hard to find a flaw in your logic as I was hopeful p2pool would help with these problems.. but i dont see any. 

I guess p2pool would improve things, as follows:

Currently if you are staking 10 CLAMs, you can expect to stake 1 CLAM every 50 days or so. If there are 100 people staking 10 CLAMs each, they each get that same very irregular reward for staking.

With p2pool, those 100 people can expect to get the same return, but with much lower variance. They each get to stake 0.01 CLAM about twice per day. Their expectation is the same (still 14% lost due to orphans) but their income is much steadier.

If that steadier reward stream makes it attractive enough for enough people to leave JD and join p2pool on their own, then the orphan rate drops, and each individual's expectation also increases.

So we have an unfortunate situation that if everyone leaves JD, it's better for everyone, but if only a few leave, it's better for the ones who stay. Classic Prisoner's Dilemma stuff.

[dooglus]

But I'm not finding the libdb packages which the readme says I should find:

I use libdb5.3++-dev. It complains that the wallet.dat won't be compatible with those from official builds, but I don't care about that.

Edit: and I think I had to run:

  ./configure --with-incompatible-bdb

to tell it that I don't care.

[BayAreaCoins]

So we have an unfortunate situation that if everyone leaves JD, it's better for everyone, but if only a few leave, it's better for the ones who stay. Classic Prisoner's Dilemma stuff.

Cut off new investments until JD is <51% of the staking power.  Grandfather current investors in.  That way you aren't kicking anyone out of "Club Dooglus".

It won't fix the decentralization this week, but it will fix it down the road.

There are a number of positives that come from this as well.  People will encourage people to dig their clams (similar to getting ppl to mine DOGE.)  People can still buy/sell JD accounts that are already invested ect. Just another layer of value for JD + it in my heart of hearts Dooglus I think it is the right thing to do.  

[dooglus]

I saw this pop up on the Clamcoin reddit today.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Clamcoin/comments/3a9w9y/clamstakernet_the_easiest_way_to_stake_your_clams/

I would be very careful with that service. I only just heard of it, but some things just don't add up.

1) They claim to be staking 24k CLAMs:



but the CLAM rich-list doesn't show any address that could be theirs unless they have split the 24k into lots of different addresses:



The screenshot lists their 'staking address', but that address has never staked:



They also claim that they staked 287 times but made just 5.75 CLAMs profit. Since each stake makes at least 1 CLAM, this is clearly wrong.

It's hard to tell whether they're making up numbers and pretending to be staking, or whether they just aren't very good at presenting information. Either way, be careful.

I would expect at least a proper proof of solvency before depositing anything to such a site.

Edit: I tried visiting the site from multiple browsers, from different IP addresses, in incognito mode. Every time it told me the same: "Your Unique ID: C3438188-38". Why are all the unique ID's the same?

Edit2:

15:01:22 (1) <@dooglus> could you go to https://clamstaker.net/ and tell me your 'unique id' in the top left please?
15:01:42 (1074398) <whiskey> Your Unique ID: C3438188-38
15:01:42 (966139) <tryphe> dooglus, C3438188-38
15:01:47 (136) <@sqwerty> C3438188-38
15:01:59 (1074398) <whiskey> not very unique.
15:02:00 (1) <@dooglus>
15:02:04 (136) <@sqwerty> lol
15:02:06 (1152817) <GanooL> C3438188-38
15:02:09 (1008361) <pablotextoris> Your Unique ID: C3438188-38
15:02:19 (136) <@sqwerty> such unique
15:02:30 (1008361) <pablotextoris> so it doesnt seem to be unique

Edit3: everyone's deposit address is the same too...

Your Deposit Address:

xE6yftowRCu3NLj2cuzrPuqCWr7NJZrwZW

Pretty sure this is nothing but a scam.

[BayAreaCoins]

I saw this pop up on the Clamcoin reddit today.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Clamcoin/comments/3a9w9y/clamstakernet_the_easiest_way_to_stake_your_clams/

I would be very careful with that service. I only just heard of it, but some things just don't add up.

1) They claim to be staking 24k CLAMs:


but the CLAM rich-list doesn't show any address that could be theirs unless they have split the 24k into lots of different addresses:

The screenshot lists their 'staking address', but that address has never staked:


They also claim that they staked 287 times but made just 5.75 CLAMs profit. Since each stake makes at least 1 CLAM, this is clearly wrong.

It's hard to tell whether they're making up numbers and pretending to be staking, or whether they just aren't very good at presenting information. Either way, be careful.

I would expect at least a proper proof of solvency before depositing anything to such a site.

Will reference this post for the Reddit ppl.

Thanks Doog.

[chilly2k]

    Their staking in the future.  Notice the last update July 2015.  

edit: added big smile to show I'm just messing around...

[BayAreaCoins]

    Their staking in the future.  Notice the last update July 2015.  

edit: added big smile to show I'm just messing around...

LOL

They got that future shit I suppose

[presstab]

I added CLAM to my explorer/PoS analyzing site. clam.presstab.pw (once it propogates) or http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/

Let me know any feedback. Took some custimization to get clams working

[dooglus]

I added CLAM to my explorer/PoS analyzing site. clam.presstab.pw (once it propogates) or http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/

Let me know any feedback. Took some custimization to get clams working

That's quite impressive. Here are my initial observations:

I like that there are charts of address balances over time. Would like to be able to set the range of the x-axis (maybe just links for last day, last week, last month, etc. would do for starters.

When I look here, the 'total change' column is missing the transaction fees. Block rewards are 1 CLAM plus fees, and so are often 1.0001, 1.0002, etc. That's getting rounded to just '1'.

The transaction view doesn't tell me whether each output is spent or not. It would be nice to have that information, along with a link to the spending transaction for each spent output.

This address shows large amounts being 'minted'. Each block only mints around 1 CLAM, but you're showing it minting 9 through 16 CLAMs per transaction.

The rich list takes quite a while to appear. Maybe you're computing it every time the page is hit rather than serving cached results.

The 'claim' feature is nice, but the column displaying the claimed name is too narrow to display much text.

The 2nd biggest address is the CLAM burn address, and shouldn't counted as part of the money supply. Those coins aren't spendable. cf. http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM

You might want to remove 'PoW difficulty' from the charts page - CLAM doesn't have any PoW and hasn't since before it was launched to the public.

The PoS difficulty looks better on a log y-axis chart, because at some point the difficulty rose by a factor of a million or so. On a linear y-axis chart all history before that time appears as if the difficulty was zero.

The 'weight' chart would be better relabelled as 'weight spent'. I was hoping for a chart of the network staking weight when I saw "weight", but didn't get it.

The 'coin supply' chart would be better if it plotted the 'active supply' number (see clamd getinfo / clamd getblock). There are 15 million CLAMs still waiting to be claimed, the majority of which will probably never be claimed. The active supply is a more interesting number, since it only counts coins that have ever moved.

It's hard to tell what 'Annual Stake Rate' chart is showing. A splke back around block 75k makes the scale too small for any recent blocks to show up at all. When I zoom in on the chart, the y-axis doesn't rescale. It would be useful if it did.

[presstab]

I added CLAM to my explorer/PoS analyzing site. clam.presstab.pw (once it propogates) or http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/

Let me know any feedback. Took some custimization to get clams working

That's quite impressive. Here are my initial observations:

I like that there are charts of address balances over time. Would like to be able to set the range of the x-axis (maybe just links for last day, last week, last month, etc. would do for starters.

When I look here, the 'total change' column is missing the transaction fees. Block rewards are 1 CLAM plus fees, and so are often 1.0001, 1.0002, etc. That's getting rounded to just '1'.

The transaction view doesn't tell me whether each output is spent or not. It would be nice to have that information, along with a link to the spending transaction for each spent output.

This address shows large amounts being 'minted'. Each block only mints around 1 CLAM, but you're showing it minting 9 through 16 CLAMs per transaction.

The rich list takes quite a while to appear. Maybe you're computing it every time the page is hit rather than serving cached results.

The 'claim' feature is nice, but the column displaying the claimed name is too narrow to display much text.

The 2nd biggest address is the CLAM burn address, and shouldn't counted as part of the money supply. Those coins aren't spendable. cf. http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM

You might want to remove 'PoW difficulty' from the charts page - CLAM doesn't have any PoW and hasn't since before it was launched to the public.

The PoS difficulty looks better on a log y-axis chart, because at some point the difficulty rose by a factor of a million or so. On a linear y-axis chart all history before that time appears as if the difficulty was zero.

The 'weight' chart would be better relabelled as 'weight spent'. I was hoping for a chart of the network staking weight when I saw "weight", but didn't get it.

The 'coin supply' chart would be better if it plotted the 'active supply' number (see clamd getinfo / clamd getblock). There are 15 million CLAMs still waiting to be claimed, the majority of which will probably never be claimed. The active supply is a more interesting number, since it only counts coins that have ever moved.

It's hard to tell what 'Annual Stake Rate' chart is showing. A splke back around block 75k makes the scale too small for any recent blocks to show up at all. When I zoom in on the chart, the y-axis doesn't rescale. It would be useful if it did.

Definitely still is a lot of work to do. Built it from the ground up, and only really been live for about two weeks. Definitely not made specifically for clams and still yet to be determined how much time I will spend on applications that are specific to one coin. The richlist I do need to work over it queries it live and for clams which has a shit load of addresses it doesn't work well, I will go to a list that updates a few times a day. Annual stake rate shows the Apr of the stake. Small inputs on clams are staking for an obsurd return on value that is why this spike is so large, might see if canvas js has some settings I can tweak in this regard... But however it is in fact that rate. My indexing does not index per output and doing such for clams would not exactly be good for my resources, and adding this to my server out of my own pocket I am not exactly thrilled to add more resources to it.

I will look into the rewards that you think are out of whack and see what I can figure out there. Still plenty of additional features and analysis that I would love to add over the next few weeks.