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

[xploited]

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

[1715069256]

1715069256

[1715069256]

1715069256

[1715069256]

1715069256

[1715069256]

1715069256

[joust]

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

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?

Regards,
Joust

[chilly2k]

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

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?

Regards,
Joust

   He is including himself in the current clam investors, not as a whale/digger.   

[xploited]

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

[statdude]

With such a high staking rate, within a few months huge digs will mean nothing anyway.

[tspacepilot]

I had non-zero balance in 12 may 2014 in BTC encrypted wallet.dat

Importing of this wallet do nothing.
Where is my CLAM 

It's not non-zero that matters, it's > than some established dust limit.  I think that it was said upthread that this was something like 10KSat.  If you're sure you had more than that in your wallet on 12 May 2014 maybe you wouldn't mind posting the relevant address so that someone else could check verify your issue.

[SuperClam]

Given the recent issues surrounding BTC at the moment, an issue was posted to the client repository a couple of days ago.

Things like this shouldn't happen in a vacuum.
Comments and opinions would be appreciated.

https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/issues/218

[EGStrategies]

pretty brutal for clam holders. any way to know what % of dug up clams have been moved (to exchanges?)

maybe I'm stupid for not caring too much that between btc's price and CLAM's in the past week I've lost around 8k usd in value

I believe the fundamental value of just-dice and clam is so much better than anything else in crypto that I just can't be worried. I have actually been less stressed about clam now that our melt up has ended and we are in a price level that will shake out the bandwagon hoppers and pure speculators

long live the great clam and just-dice

[dooglus]

With such a high staking rate, within a few months huge digs will mean nothing anyway.

It takes almost a year to stake 500k CLAMs:

>>> 500e3 / 60 / 24
347.22222222222223

347 days...

[dooglus]

I had non-zero balance in 12 may 2014 in BTC encrypted wallet.dat

It's possible for anyone to submit fixes to the CLAM website. I just submitted a pull request to fix the date:
  https://github.com/nochowderforyou/nochowderforyou.github.io/pull/3

Importing of this wallet do nothing.
Where is my CLAM 

We're going to need a little more detail. Which specific address was funded on 12th May 2014?

[thimo]

Can we do such giveaway like CLAM for MAPC?
We could share our both communities wallets to get freebies which would change ie into free coffee at local shops that work with our app

[Yannic]

Keep CALM, Keep CLAMs 

[gordob]

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

xploited - based on the above i assume this person has made themselves known?

[SuperClam]

xploited - based on the above i assume this person has made themselves known?

Not to my knowledge; though some people have some theories of possible entities.


The 3%~ figure comes from assuming:

A. The distribution was shuffled before sending; i.e. it is randomly distributed over distribution blocks.
B. Claims are proceeding in an ordered block-by-block fashion.
C. The percentage claimed from previous blocks.
D. The assumption that blocks "ahead" have not been previously claimed by the user.
E. The assumption that blocks "ahead" will be claimed eventually.
F. The assumption that, given the random distribution, blocks "ahead" will contain proportional claims.

So, a few assumptions are being applied to come up with the estimates

[gordob]

xploited - based on the above i assume this person has made themselves known?

Not to my knowledge; though some people have some theories of possible entities.


The 3%~ figure comes from assuming:

A. The distribution was shuffled before sending; i.e. it is randomly distributed over distribution blocks.
B. Claims are proceeding in an ordered block-by-block fashion.
C. The percentage claimed from previous blocks.
D. The assumption that blocks "ahead" have not been previously claimed by the user.
E. The assumption that blocks "ahead" will be claimed eventually.
F. The assumption that, given the random distribution, blocks "ahead" will contain proportional claims.

So, a few assumptions are being applied to come up with the estimates

Good to know, in my opinion the digging of clam is to allow many people to benefit, not just 1 person or entity.
In a case like this you have to assume either the following;
- Person/entity found a bug and exploiting
- Actually have all those valid addresses, which i find still unlikely
- Malicious, they stole those addresses

Based on the above,
- Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit
- if we are saying many people should benefit from the dig, surely there should be a limit on clam clients on how many addresses they can dig, daily or over the lifetime

m2c

[SuperClam]

Good to know, in my opinion the digging of clam is to allow many people to benefit, not just 1 person or entity.

I understand your concern.

In a case like this you have to assume either the following;
- Person/entity found a bug and exploiting
- Actually have all those valid addresses, which i find still unlikely
- Malicious, they stole those addresses

Although it is common practice to call claiming CLAMs "digging" or even "claiming", the reality is that the distribution is much more fundamental and less complicated. 
A bug/exploit would need involve the fundamental guarantees of all crypto currencies.

In short, there is no evidence at all to suggest there is any exploit.

There is little doubt that the user claiming does control the private keys for the coins they are claiming. 
How they gained access to those keys is anyone's guess.

Based on the above,
- Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit
- if we are saying many people should benefit from the dig, surely there should be a limit on clam clients on how many addresses they can dig, daily or over the lifetime
m2c

There is absolutely no reason to believe there is any exploit.
If there is an exploit; I highly doubt the user begins by applying it to CLAM, when there are so many juicy BTC out there to steal (It would almost certainly apply to BTC as well).

Again, a change to the "claim" process is highly unlikely; and not presently planned.

[gordob]

Based on the above,
- Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit
- if we are saying many people should benefit from the dig, surely there should be a limit on clam clients on how many addresses they can dig, daily or over the lifetime
m2c

There is absolutely no reason to believe there is any exploit.
If there is an exploit; I highly doubt the user begins by applying it to CLAM, when there are so many juicy BTC out there to steal (It would almost certainly apply to BTC as well).

Again, a change to the "claim" process is highly unlikely; and not presently planned.

Ok, maybe i have not been clear enough & obviously not technical in this regard.

My query "Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit" specifically for the dig process with clam client, BTC is not a proof-of-stake coin so i don't see the relevance.
- Due diligence is all that is asked

[SuperClam]

Ok, maybe i have not been clear enough & obviously not technical in this regard.
My query "Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit" specifically for the dig process with clam clinet, BTC is not a proof-of-stake coin so i don't see the relevance.
- Due diligence is all that is asked

I think you have been plenty clear.
Maybe I have not.

Check what, exactly?

check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit" specifically for the dig process

There is no "dig process".

A "dig" is nothing more than a transaction.

BTC is not a proof-of-stake coin so i don't see the relevance.

A "dig" transaction is secured by the same asymmetric key cryptography that is used in BTC.
It is, in fact, a standard transaction.

It is very relevant.

If someone can sign a transaction to "dig" an output, without the private key which corresponds to the output/public key - then they can steal every CLAM, BTC, LTC, etc. in existence.

Proof-Of-Work/Proof-Of-Stake, used to secure the state of the chain, is not related.

- Due diligence is all that is asked

The chain is reviewed daily by multiple parties who have an interest in the system.
The code in question deals with standard asymmetric key signatures.

If there is an "exploit" - then you, and the world, have bigger problems than CLAM.

[gordob]

Ok, maybe i have not been clear enough & obviously not technical in this regard.
My query "Have there been a 'control' check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit" specifically for the dig process with clam clinet, BTC is not a proof-of-stake coin so i don't see the relevance.
- Due diligence is all that is asked

I think you have been plenty clear.
Maybe I have not.

Check what, exactly?

check to see if there is a potential bug/exploit" specifically for the dig process

There is no "dig process".

A "dig" is nothing more than a transaction.

BTC is not a proof-of-stake coin so i don't see the relevance.

A "dig" transaction is secured by the same asymmetric key cryptography that is used in BTC.
It is, in fact, a standard transaction.

It is very relevant.

If someone can sign a transaction to "dig" an output, without the private key which corresponds to the output/public key - then they can steal every CLAM, BTC, LTC, etc. in existence.

Proof-Of-Work/Proof-Of-Stake, used to secure the state of the chain, is not related.

- Due diligence is all that is asked

The chain is reviewed daily by multiple parties who have an interest in the system.
The code in question deals with standard asymmetric key signatures.

If there is an "exploit" - then you, and the world, have bigger problems than CLAM.

100% thanks - got it )

[SuperClam]

100% thanks - got it )

Sure, my pleasure

The only dumb question, is the question not asked.

Cheers!