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

[Videodrome]

what a fake pump!

congrats!

[Bitcoiner2015]

Either people are betting recklessly at the moment, or their luck has been out in the last couple of days! 

The price is dreadful, but I will hold/invest/bet CLAM still.
People like having a go at Dooglus, but I would be worried about storing lots of coins at almost any other altcoin gambling site.  JD being trustworthy is a massive part of the clam environment imo.

oops, hadn't looked at the price, a bit better now!

[smooth]

what a fake pump!

congrats!

I disagree. There is nothing particularly fake about it, and this price range is well supported by fundamentals as I posted yesterday.

If anything what was fake was the bear raid that was going on complete with high volumes of shorting and FUD being posted here constantly.

Nothing has really happened that has changed the fundamentals except a 60% supply increase (which would support a 40% price drop, or perhaps a bit less) and the bear raiders lost their "Whale Digger" boogeyman.

[dooglus]

By removing the core distribution process from clam, would kill this coin.

Yesterday Creative posted her draft "CLAMour" voting proposal, allowing the community to vote whether they want to change things like the distribution process. The coin didn't die.

If you can't take the volatility of an altcoin you shouldn't even be here. You still have the option of cashing out before the digger dumps the rest of his stash. Give the market some time to shift into place.
Clam will end up being around 10k sats before it starts rising again.

CLAM hit a low of 72k then a high of 300k a few hours ago:



The digger now claims to have sold his remaining CLAMs. The price started rising as soon as he said this.

Not sure about the 10,000 block time frame though, it doesn't seem like enough time for a real vote to occur.

It's a rolling window of 1 week. It's not like a petition has a week to gather support. It lives until it gains 50% (or whatever) support over any 1 week period.

Is the Clamour name a take on the word clamor?

No, on the word "clamour.

clamour
verb
Make a vehement protest or demand:
scientists are clamouring for a ban on all chlorine substances

They will stake separately, but may be recombined when you stake, depending on your config.

So, how do you set the config so they won't recombine?

    combinelimit=0 in clam.conf

Its default value is 1, which means it will attempt to combine values of less than 1 CLAM together, but nothing bigger than 1.

You can also:

    combineany=1

which means it will consider combining outputs even if they are on different addresses.

For Just-Dice's hot wallet I use:

    combinelimit=25
    combineany=1
    splitsize=13.37

to keep the outputs around 13 to 25 CLAMs in size, and allow cross-address combining.

Edit: oh, and I meant to say... if you want to see an example of a big transaction sending to multiple addresses with {"amount":...,"count":...}, check this one out. That's me splitting all the recent new Just-Dice deposits up for staking.

About the current/future whale diggers, one possibility I haven't heard mentioned would be very simple and would dilute the initial distribution: increase the reward. There's at least a precedent for changing the reward system in Clams.

That certainly has a couple of benefits over decreasing the 4.6 CLAM reward:

1) We don't have to break any promises. "If you owned BTC you may already own CLAM!" stays true. The 4.6 per address that you "may already own!" stays there. We aren't accused of deleting people's property.

2) Technically, it's awkward to implement a reduction in the initial rewards. What if I've dug my address but not spent or staked it yet? I see 4.6 CLAMs in my wallet. One day I update the client and what, my balance drops to 2.3? What if I try spending my 4.6 CLAMs just before the hard fork, but by the time it confirms the fork has happened and my transaction is no longer valid? It's a mess.

This would likely be terrible for the price. It might push us below 0.001. (<- That's intended as dark humour. I have looked at the price today.)

It would reduce the price per CLAM, but everyone's CLAM holdings would be growing at the same pace (except for those who aren't staking, of course) so the market cap should stay about the same.

I doubt such a proposal would be successful, even though it's better than trying to reduce the initial reward in my opinion. Rich CLAM holders voting to make themselves richer isn't good from a PR angle...

I still don't really understand what's supposed to happen in the event of a successful vote. Can you expand on that? So far I gather that nothing really happens, it's just a metric you can use to assess whether x% of people are likely to run a new fork with your proposed changes. It'd be up to the petition-maker to implement any changes they'd like to see, and convince people to run the new version.

Is that about the gist of it?

Yes, that's about it. It's a way of discovering what "we" want. Once we know what we want, implementing it is relatively simple. And since so many of us want it, it shouldn't be hard to find one of us with the necessary skills (or budget) to make it happen.

how do I use -staketo

just this?:
./clamd -staketo=<addresshere>  

Yes, or in clam.conf without the hyphen.

I use:

    staketo=xJDCLAMZW9xZEFRfWhxXkcCGYkHAzhsjT5

in clam.conf.

[clf99]

how long do clams have to sit there before they start staking?

[rocoro]

how do I use -staketo

just this?:
./clamd -staketo=<addresshere>  

Yes, or in clam.conf without the hyphen.

I use:

    staketo=xJDCLAMZW9xZEFRfWhxXkcCGYkHAzhsjT5

in clam.conf.

If I don't use -staketo  where do they end up going?  Just to the same address that staked?

Thanks.

[smooth]

About the current/future whale diggers, one possibility I haven't heard mentioned would be very simple and would dilute the initial distribution: increase the reward. There's at least a precedent for changing the reward system in Clams.

That certainly has a couple of benefits over decreasing the 4.6 CLAM reward:

It might also very well prompt a massive increase in the rate of digging. This digger very likely sped up his digging in response to talk of a fork that would prevent him from digging the rest. If a big increase in the staking rate is proposed, others will likely accelerate their digging as well.

Instead we should leave well enough alone, stop creating more evidence in support of the law of unintended consequences, and allow confidence to recover. With the damage that is already done that will take some time already, but it can happen.

1) We don't have to break any promises. "If you owned BTC you may already own CLAM!" stays true. The 4.6 per address that you "may already own!" stays there. We aren't accused of deleting people's property.

No, you will be accused of diluting people's property instead. Congratulations.

It's a rolling window of 1 week. It's not like a petition has a week to gather support. It lives until it gains 50% (or whatever) support over any 1 week period

What happens when support subsequently changes after the 50% support is reached? Coins change hands, opinions change and suddenly something that had 50% support last week doesn't this week. This week being an excellent example since apparently 200K+ coins have apparently changed hands.

The most meaningful proposals will be ones that are ready to implement quickly if supported. Otherwise the voting should continue and the 10K window be viewed as just that, an ongoing "window" into current opinion of stakeholders. Or alternately a second vote can be held at a later date to reaffirm, once an implementation is ready.

This of course won't be an issue for uncontroversial proposals that will get significant support regardless of the time window. It is my hope that stakeholders are enlightened enough to decline to vote for controversial proposals where the inevitable conflict will cause damage to the community even if they personally believe the idea is a good one (and instead work to educate the community such that if the idea really is a good one, support can be achieved). This will force those putting forth a proposal to craft it in a manner that gains overwhelming support instead of trying to use the voting mechanism as a PR tool to legitimize a 51% attack. I'm not entirely optimistic, but we will see.

[smooth]

If I don't use -staketo  where do they end up going?  Just to the same address that staked?

Yes

[USB-S]

By removing the core distribution process from clam, would kill this coin.

Yesterday Creative posted her draft "CLAMour" voting proposal, allowing the community to vote whether they want to change things like the distribution process. The coin didn't die.

However they didn't change the initial distribution method. Voting is just an extra feature to let community decide.

If you can't take the volatility of an altcoin you shouldn't even be here. You still have the option of cashing out before the digger dumps the rest of his stash. Give the market some time to shift into place.
Clam will end up being around 10k sats before it starts rising again.

CLAM hit a low of 72k then a high of 300k a few hours ago:

The digger now claims to have sold his remaining CLAMs. The price started rising as soon as he said this.

Is there any proof that this is true? If I recall correctly he had over 300k coins left. How do we know that he just didn't say that just to pump the price up before he dumps on us again.

[smooth]

By removing the core distribution process from clam, would kill this coin.

Yesterday Creative posted her draft "CLAMour" voting proposal, allowing the community to vote whether they want to change things like the distribution process. The coin didn't die.

However they didn't change the initial distribution method. Voting is just an extra feature to let community decide.

Some skepticism is warranted given the basic premise that you don't ask a question when you don't already have some expectation that you will like the answer. Someone decided to implement this feature and roll it out on an accelerated schedule. Consider what that implies.

I'm hopeful that the community (including some insiders who almost certainly own a lot of coins themselves) will rise to the occasion, stop being manipulated by FUDding short sellers, and leave the distribution alone.

[smooth]

JD bankroll just crossed 1 million.

[USB-S]

By removing the core distribution process from clam, would kill this coin.

Yesterday Creative posted her draft "CLAMour" voting proposal, allowing the community to vote whether they want to change things like the distribution process. The coin didn't die.

However they didn't change the initial distribution method. Voting is just an extra feature to let community decide.

Some skepticism is warranted given the basic premise that you don't ask a question when you don't already have some expectation that you will like the answer. Someone decided to implement this feature and roll it out on an accelerated schedule. Consider what that implies.

I'm hopeful that the community (including some insiders who almost certainly own a lot of coins themselves) will rise to the occasion, stop being manipulated by FUDding short sellers, and leave the distribution alone.

My hope for the community is the same.

The distribution debate is much like the block size debate. In the end the community will most likely chose what's best for the coin to survive.


Gz on JD for making bank

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

JD bankroll just crossed 1 million.

dooglus needs to invent a tradeable JD instrument that polo can list.  that way people can participate in JD (and CLAMs?) without dooglus holding all the CLAMs.

Is this a good CLAMidea, or is my CLAMidea bad, by definition?

inb4 anybody else who thinks I'm a CLAMidiot

[jaysabi]

The CLAMour voting system looks interesting. Good work!

About the current/future whale diggers, one possibility I haven't heard mentioned would be very simple and would dilute the initial distribution: increase the reward. There's at least a precedent for changing the reward system in Clams.

Maybe I'll make a CLAMour petition to increase the reward from 1 clam per block to, oh, say, 100 clams per block. This would increase the supply by about a million clams a week. Before long the initial distribution would be a relatively small percent of the total supply.

This would likely be terrible for the price. It might push us below 0.001. (<- That's intended as dark humour. I have looked at the price today.)

The problem isn't the ratio of initial distribution to total float, it's inflation as a whole. The whale digger only accelerated a problem that is inherent to CLAM. Creating faster inflation to make whale digger inflation smaller by comparison doesn't solve any problems.

[dooglus]

how long do clams have to sit there before they start staking?

They need to have not been involved in a transaction for 4 hours, and not involved in staking for 500 blocks (or around 8 hours). That's before they will start trying to stake. After that it's just down to luck how long it takes.

[dooglus]

If I don't use -staketo  where do they end up going?  Just to the same address that staked?

They stay at the same address, yes.

[jaysabi]

Our CLAM - The CLAMour Specification

Looking great. Thanks for all the work put into this. Not sure about the 10,000 block time frame though, it doesn't seem like enough time for a real vote to occur. Is the Clamour name a take on the word clamor?

About the 10,000 block frame: That's a moving frame. There is no deadline for votes; instead, whenever >50% of blocks staked in any 10,000 block window express support of a petition, that's considered a majority. So in effect, the vote can occur any time.

Is there no way to defeat a proposal then? All proposals are simply pending until they reach consensus?

[smooth]

Our CLAM - The CLAMour Specification

Looking great. Thanks for all the work put into this. Not sure about the 10,000 block time frame though, it doesn't seem like enough time for a real vote to occur. Is the Clamour name a take on the word clamor?

About the 10,000 block frame: That's a moving frame. There is no deadline for votes; instead, whenever >50% of blocks staked in any 10,000 block window express support of a petition, that's considered a majority. So in effect, the vote can occur any time.

Is there no way to defeat a proposal then? All proposals are simply pending until they reach consensus?

It's just a survey of opinion of stake holders over a time window, nothing more. It can't bind future stakeholders or even the same ones at a later time. If someone were to interpret it as "approval" and try to push through a soft fork on that basis where opinion had later shifted against, the fork would fail. Conversely if someone proposes a soft fork that previously failed to gain support in a survey but was later supported by a majority of stake holders, that fork would probably succeed.

Some sort of mechanism for timing them out to avoid clutter might be reasonable. At that point if there is still interest in continuing to measure stakeholder opinion on that question, it could be resubmitted.

[rocoro]

Dooglus or other devs..  I need help.

I'm using the daemon on linux.   I don't know how to explain this, I'll try.

How do I do the splitting '{"count":c,"amount":a}'  thing but within the same wallet - after having done once before with new coins that I deposited to wallet,  I'm finding that it might "pull" from the other address to do the splitting ... and mess up. 

So,  like how do I just split *from* the one address without having touched or messed with coins sitting in other addresses??? 

Does that make sense?

Thanks in advance..

[dooglus]

So,  like how do I just split *from* the one address without having touched or messed with coins sitting in other addresses??? 

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but I don't have a good answer for you. For some reason, coin control (input selection) was added directly to the GUI and isn't available from the command line, and the count,amount stuff is only available from the command line, not the GUI. So you get one or the other.

Possible workarounds include making a separate wallet and importing only the private keys you want to spend from, or using raw transactions (create|sign|send)rawtransaction to manually select the inputs and outputs (createrawtransaction accepts the same count,amount syntax), but be careful with that, because you need to calculate the 'change' yourself. If the inputs sum to more than the outputs, the difference is considered a transaction fee.