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

[cjmoles]

Wallet stuck on block 603044, and doesn't even show the status bar at the bottom anymore.


Unsure what to do..

If anyone has a recent bootstrap that would be really cool 

Look at the OP in this thread.  I believe the bootstrap there is the most recent.  It goes to 729K I believe....that's pretty new.  Download it and place it in the same folder as your wallet and then restart....still takes awhile but wont stick like it has been.

[whywetrance]

Will look again- have already gotten all of them off the ann.

Going to put the Qt on another machine to see what happens.

[SuperClam]

CLAM is a fledgling network.
It is in the network's interest that the community not be splintered over this issue.

There is no silver-bullet.
Even the development team itself is uncertain and not in agreement about the correct course of action.

There are a variety of possible choices, including doing nothing at all, which could be implemented.


We are volunteers who enjoy our work with CLAM.
It is important to dooglus, xploited and I that our efforts concerning development are aligned with the desires of the network.

We cannot force any user to use updated software.
This endeavor we find ourselves undertaking wasn't designed to work that way.

For this reason, over the next handful of days, we will be removing the term "official" when referring to the reference client.
The reference client is intended to be a reference for "correct" implementation of the core protocol.
It therefore is more accurate for us to refer to it as simply the "original" or "reference" client.

The reference client will undergo updates from time to time.
It is each individual user's choice to install/use these updates - or not.
As always, the version of the protocol utilized by the majority of the network stakeholders will control the chain.

This isn't new - I simply felt it was important to outline the way in which this adventure was designed to operate.
That is important.
A great deal of confusion and disagreement can be avoided by simply being clear about our ideals and intentions.

[SuperClam]

So!

We have a group of people who work on the reference client.
We want to work in such a way in that we are meeting the needs of the majority of stakeholders in CLAM.
There is disagreement on what exactly that work should be - if anything at all.

How do we discover what the majority of stakeholders in CLAM desire?


Proof-Of-Stake has a unique attribute: blocks are found and submitted by the stakeholders of CLAM.
This is different than Proof-Of-Work, where blocks are created by a separate party via computation.
This means that those who find blocks and CLAM stakeholders are the same parties.

Our form of Proof-Of-Working-Stake has a unique attribute: there is no weight.
This results in the chance to stake a block being directly proportional to our stake in the network.
This means that we can verify the share of the network that users possess as blocks are staked.

One block staked == proof of one "unit" of CLAM.

Further, our CLAMspeech system allows users to attach data to their transactions/stakes.
This means that we have a platform for users to communicate their wishes.


Our proof-of-working-stake system, as outlined above, in conjunction with our CLAMspeech system, can allow us to poll the opinion and desires of CLAM stakeholders.
These opinions can be weighted via individual user's stake, utilizing the network stake system itself.


CLAM Petitions

• Shortly, we will release detailed instructions for users to express their opinion on the direction of CLAM development.
• This process will involve attaching designated CLAMspeech messages to staked blocks.
• The protocol/process will allow multiple petitions to occur simultaneously.
• The process will be designed to allow any user to initiate a petition and seek support from other users.
• The development team will initiate and use this process to inform our efforts concerning controversial updates.

We are announcing the topic of the first of these petitions: the process and continuation of "digging" distribution CLAM.
In the coming days, we will announce the timing, choices and assist users in properly submitting "votes" using the process.


The first petition will likely be simplified - but, we see this as an enduring way forward with governance.

This process will allow the entire community to ascertain what petitions have majority support among stakeholders (and is hence likely to succeed given completed code).
The community can then proceed informed and collaborate on getting the code ready to submit to the community.


We invite the community to help us hone the list of choices prior to the start of the voting on this first petition.

Long Live The Great CLAM!

[xploited]

...

• Shortly, we will release detailed instructions for users to express their opinion on the direction of CLAM development.
• This process will involve attaching designated CLAMspeech messages to staked blocks.
• The protocol/process will allow multiple petitions to occur simultaneously.
• The process will be designed to allow any user to initiate a petition and seek support from other users.
• The development team will initiate and use this process to inform our efforts concerning controversial updates.

...

Long Live The Great CLAM!

Agreed. This is the most logical way forward

[Bitcoiner2015]

Wallet stuck on block 603044, and doesn't even show the status bar at the bottom anymore.


Unsure what to do..

If anyone has a recent bootstrap that would be really cool 

I would also like a recent bootstrap if anyone has one.

[BayAreaCoins]

Wallet stuck on block 603044, and doesn't even show the status bar at the bottom anymore.


Unsure what to do..

If anyone has a recent bootstrap that would be really cool 

I would also like a recent bootstrap if anyone has one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9772191#msg9772191

[SuperClam]

Wallet stuck on block 603044, and doesn't even show the status bar at the bottom anymore.

Unsure what to do..
If anyone has a recent bootstrap that would be really cool 

I would also like a recent bootstrap if anyone has one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9772191#msg9772191

Thanks BAC

[cryptospout]

...

• Shortly, we will release detailed instructions for users to express their opinion on the direction of CLAM development.
• This process will involve attaching designated CLAMspeech messages to staked blocks.
• The protocol/process will allow multiple petitions to occur simultaneously.
• The process will be designed to allow any user to initiate a petition and seek support from other users.
• The development team will initiate and use this process to inform our efforts concerning controversial updates.

...

Long Live The Great CLAM!

Agreed. This is the most logical way forward

why not just let dooglus decide then? as he owns the largest staking pool and will win the vote regardless? unless I am missing something.

[marilyn4325]

why not just let dooglus decide then? as he owns the largest staking pool and will win the vote regardless? unless I am missing something.

I think most coins are the investors money in JD, not doog's personal money. There should be a vote option in JD.

[cryptospout]

why not just let dooglus decide then? as he owns the largest staking pool and will win the vote regardless? unless I am missing something.

I think most coins are the investors money in JD, not doog's personal money. There should be a vote option in JD.

except that wouldn't work you can only set one clam speech per stake, the idea of a pooled stake is that everyone's coins are combined (everyone's opinion would also be combined) however because doog does have control of the coins technically he has the ability to control the vote of those staked coins.

[SuperClam]

why not just let dooglus decide then? as he owns the largest staking pool and will win the vote regardless? unless I am missing something.

I think most coins are the investors money in JD, not doog's personal money. There should be a vote option in JD.

except that wouldn't work you can only set one clam speech per stake, the idea of a pooled stake is that everyone's coins are combined (everyone's opinion would also be combined) however because doog does have control of the coins technically he has the ability to control the vote of those staked coins.

As I understand it, the intention is to set up a provably fair user UI at JD.
Find the proportion of various options, roll a dice to select based on that proportion.

[danonthehill]

OK, more decentralized approach with voting...like it.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[smooth]

As always, the version of the protocol utilized by the majority of the network stakeholders will control the chain.

This is largely incorrect, and if you are operating under this misunderstanding you will eventually break the coin and destroy its value entirely.

You can not have any significant minority running an incompatible client or you will have transactions that confirm on either or both chains and it will never be possible to agree who owns which coins. The coin will be entirely destroyed.

A majority of network stakeholders is useless for determining the network rules. You must have either near-unanimity on the rules, or any disagreements must be resolved by creating a new coin on a separate network.

I can't argue against the idea of conducting polls, as that is just free speech, but if your idea is to deploy a contentious change to the system (and taking away coins away from people who own them will certainly be contentious whether voted for or not) on the basis of a majority vote, then you are misguided.

[SuperClam]

As always, the version of the protocol utilized by the majority of the network stakeholders will control the chain.

This is largely incorrect, and if you are operating under this misunderstanding you will eventually break the coin and destroy its value entirely.
You can not have any significant minority running an incompatible client or you will have transactions that confirm on either or both chains and it will never be possible to agree who owns which coins. The coin will be entirely destroyed.
A majority of network stakeholders is useless for determining the network rules. You must have either near-unanimity on the rules, or any disagreements must be resolved by creating a new coin on a separate network.
I can't argue against the idea of conducting polls, as that is just free speech, but if your idea is to deploy a contentious change to the system (and taking away coins away from people who own them will certainly be contentious whether voted for or not) on the basis of a majority vote, then you are misguided.

You are under-estimating the ability for humans to reach consensus.
If there was a situation with contention, users have a vested interest in verifying and agreeing with the majority chain.
This creates a very powerful incentive to update.

Of course, the minority could choose to continue running incompatible software.
They would, essentially, be on their own network.
Ideally, the other major parties (such as services and exchanges) agree with the change; but, in the end an exchange client has no value if it refuses to verify the transactions of the economic majority.

Communication would prevent the network from getting to that point, but for illustration:
When faced with one support request for fork A, and 50 support requests for fork B.... The choice is quite clear.

How do you think new network protocol rules are implemented during a fork?
By definition, majority stakeholders control the chain.


That said, there is no covert plan to do anything at the moment except allow the community to make their own decision.
Then, if a decision for change is made, there is development, evangelism at the various services/exchanges for adoption, update and eventually a change to the network protocol.

You, nor I, have to agree.
In the case of a fork, that which represents the majority, and thus is the most useful, will undoubtedly be adopted.


Regardless, you are jumping ahead of the starting line.
First, the community gets a provable voice.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[gamblingbad]

At this point I am discussion weary. I don't care what we do as long as the final decision comes soon. I will support whatever dooglus wants to do.

+1 i am also in favor of this.

+1 i will support dooglus too.

I won't!

If there will be no votes, then this coins will lose faith entirely.
If there will be votes, I will make sure that I have enough coins/votes to prevent "expropriating" a few holders: you guys cannot be serious about what you are discussing.

Dosent matter what the vote is. What matter is if JD will only use clam.

[AltcoinScamfinder]

OK, more decentralized approach with voting...like it.

Voting? Well, I guess the digger with his 500000k CLAMs will for sure vote against a "new coin".
If a vote comes up I will buy at least 50k CLAM and also vote against it as well

I am sure that only the small fishes will vote in favor of a new coin.
All those who feel suppressed by the "large-scale investors".

The only chanse I see for the new coin to be voted for is when Doog takes the invested coins on JD and used them to place a vote pro new coin.
But this again will be faaar from democratic, transparent and acceptable.

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

[cryptospout]

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

100% of your statistics are bullshit