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

[andulolika]

How about a suicide Clamour.  The Clamour would say something like:

All Clams will be removed.  Digging and staking will cease.

This would make all clams unspendable.  It could be done by changing the code.

Would this create an existential loop?  Can clams vote for their own demise?  Once the clams are all gone does their vote sill count?

I'm not one to participate in political causes so maybe somebody else could do it.

Go ahead and make it for fun and experience. Couldn't be worse than the Clamour petition that is simply a link to a gif of a dog fucking its own face. (# eff96b06 has the support of  0.15% of the Just-Dice bankroll : http://txti.es/eff96b06 [nsfw])

Hell, make it a piece of artwork in a modern art museum.

They removed my post, thanks for promoting it, and vote!.

[Faust Roland]

Hi guys,

can you add petition e2ef93da (Postpone digging into the future) to the http://txti.es/clamour (Not sure who has the rights to do that, so I am posting it here)

Its alternative to "Remove digging" and would be nice, that "5afa074c" voters would be informed about this option. I hope that some of them may rethink their vote.

[SuperClam]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

[EGStrategies]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

this is awesome, voted

[dooglus]

Hi guys,

can you add petition e2ef93da (Postpone digging into the future) to the http://txti.es/clamour (Not sure who has the rights to do that, so I am posting it here)

Its alternative to "Remove digging" and would be nice, that "5afa074c" voters would be informed about this option. I hope that some of them may rethink their vote.

I just added it. For multi-line petitions I'm just putting the first line with [...] to indicate there's more if you click the link.

[dooglus]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

I'm not sure whether to add those to the /clamour list or to consider them in the same category as "dog humping own mouth".

[EGStrategies]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

can you add vermin supreme under 3rd parties?

[djhomeschool]

Decided to sponsor a round of tribia in JD every time somebody makes an order and pays with CLAM on my site. Best time to order? Evenings.

(Disclaimer: I will still try like hell to answer a question correctly during the round.)

[thefix]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

Such an awesome way to use CLAMour!


I love it!

[Faust Roland]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.

The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.

http://txti.es/potus2016

Such an awesome way to use CLAMour!


I love it!

Except:
- You can vote for more candidates at same time
- You can vote even if you are not from USA
- More clams, more votes.

So I am not sure if the result of such pool would lead to relevant results...

[SuperClam]

Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions.
The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges.
http://txti.es/potus2016

Such an awesome way to use CLAMour!
I love it!

Except:
- You can vote for more candidates at same time
- You can vote even if you are not from USA
- More clams, more votes.
So I am not sure if the result of such pool would lead to relevant results...

The intent is surely not to get scientifically relevant poll results.

It is a permanent medium in which people can express their opinion without moderation or censorship.

I am not a lawyer, but one of the primary legal arguments against censorship, regulation and legislation of crypto-networks revolves around claiming that the network is a platform for protected speech. LINK

Political speech is one of the most commonly protected forms of speech.

[SebastianJu]

Thanks for the clarification, i see my misunderstanding. I think most exchanges in fact sweep like that when a user wants to withdraw. It really might be that they have less addresses with clams than one would assume.

Didn't you say that no big digs will happen because big exchanges swipe addresses? That would only make sense when they would swipe addresses that had clams attached to. With a backup they could still claim them.

And i think exchanges would need backups because there are enough users that will send bitcoins to old addresses of them. These bitcoins otherwise would vanish if no backup of the private keys of swiped bitcoin addresses existed anymore.

I think you are misunderstanding still.

First, she is talking about "sweeping" coins from deposit addresses into a single storage address (not "swiping", which means something between "taking" and "stealing").

And second, most big services will regularly tidy their wallets to sweep the dust into a central address. Otherwise you end up with a big ugly wallet full of dust. Since they were regularly doing that, they are unlikely to have had many *funded* addresses at the time of the CLAM snapshot, and so wouldn't have been awarded many sets of free 4.6 CLAMs. It doesn't matter if they've kept all the one dust addresses since, because those were mostly empty at the time of the snapshot.

Do you understand the point now? The initial distribution awards those who didn't keep their wallets tidy - like faucet abusers who collected tens of thousands of dust outputs in tens of thousands of addresses. Those who kept the blockchain's UTXO set tidy received much less. Personally, from all the wallets I control I was able to dig around 30 sets of 4.6 CLAMs. That's from 3 or 4 Just-Dice hot wallets, a few Doge-Doge, cold wallets for both, and a bunch of personal wallets too (core and android). 30 funded addresses in total, because I kept everything clean and tidy.

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Do you need to care at all about the decision? I guess you probably have so many clams that your decision on this will nearly be final when the rest of the community votes 50%-50% isn't it? Maybe i overestimate the amount of clams you own.

To be pedantic, anyone's decision is final when the rest of the community is 50/50, assuming >50% is the criterion for deciding it.

I already supported the petitions I support, so there's no last-minute controlling vote coming from me.

[Mikolo]

There's a new lottery accepting CLAM:
https://www.cryptolotto.xyz/
Please add it to the OP.

[dooglus]

So I was just working through the CLAM issue tracker. I saw that issue #252 was still open even though I already fixed it.

I checked that "clamd getsupport" really did work:

clamd getsupport
{
  "threshold" : 0,
  "window" : 10000,
  "endblock" : 778536,
  "startblock" : 768537,
  "support" : {
    "0000cb61" : 34,
    "02fde4a4" : 6,
    "066b223d" : 3,
    "26dfbf81" : 8,
    "5afa074c" : 43,
    "694c26a6" : 2,
    "7a69a853" : 25,
    "c9328886" : 2,
    "ea06c089" : 18,
    "eff96b06" : 10,
    "ff839af9" : 33
  }
}

and was surprised to see the vote tallies so small.

Then it occurred to me that since I moved JD to new servers about a week ago, the staking wallet hasn't been supporting any petitions at all.

Oops!

It's fixed again now.

  Before: http://khashier.com/tx/496955fa5e0533cde6d83215bc49874cd58013b182f9b85e810e7ea675b6a0cb

  After: http://khashier.com/tx/ccdb1b89321f0946b7fe6fc21c3c793a6c1cb49365fe6814f6a0f0181b2e0c35

Sorry for the downtime.

Edit: now we see the tallies increasing again:

$ clamd getsupport
{
  "threshold" : 0,
  "window" : 10000,
  "endblock" : 778660,
  "startblock" : 768661,
  "support" : {
    "0000cb61" : 34,
    "02fde4a4" : 8,
    "066b223d" : 3,
    "26dfbf81" : 8,
    "5afa074c" : 53,
    "694c26a6" : 7,
    "7a69a853" : 29,
    "c9328886" : 2,
    "ea06c089" : 24,
    "eff96b06" : 10,
    "ff839af9" : 46
  }
}

[bytemycoin]

So I was just working through the CLAM issue tracker. I saw that issue #252 was still open even though I already fixed it.

I checked that "clamd getsupport" really did work:

clamd getsupport
{
  "threshold" : 0,
  "window" : 10000,
  "endblock" : 778536,
  "startblock" : 768537,
  "support" : {
    "0000cb61" : 34,
    "02fde4a4" : 6,
    "066b223d" : 3,
    "26dfbf81" : 8,
    "5afa074c" : 43,
    "694c26a6" : 2,
    "7a69a853" : 25,
    "c9328886" : 2,
    "ea06c089" : 18,
    "eff96b06" : 10,
    "ff839af9" : 33
  }
}

and was surprised to see the vote tallies so small.

Then it occurred to me that since I moved JD to new servers about a week ago, the staking wallet hasn't been supporting any petitions at all.

Oops!

It's fixed again now.

  Before: http://khashier.com/tx/496955fa5e0533cde6d83215bc49874cd58013b182f9b85e810e7ea675b6a0cb

  After: http://khashier.com/tx/ccdb1b89321f0946b7fe6fc21c3c793a6c1cb49365fe6814f6a0f0181b2e0c35

Sorry for the downtime.

Edit: now we see the tallies increasing again:

$ clamd getsupport
{
  "threshold" : 0,
  "window" : 10000,
  "endblock" : 778660,
  "startblock" : 768661,
  "support" : {
    "0000cb61" : 34,
    "02fde4a4" : 8,
    "066b223d" : 3,
    "26dfbf81" : 8,
    "5afa074c" : 53,
    "694c26a6" : 7,
    "7a69a853" : 29,
    "c9328886" : 2,
    "ea06c089" : 24,
    "eff96b06" : 10,
    "ff839af9" : 46
  }
}

I guess these numbers speak for themselves.  No more need to argue on threads with bias opinions (my own included). It is apparent what the larger clam community wants, or at lest those who have "Stake" in the game (pun intended).  I am actually surprised since I would have not expected such a large number of votes represented.  I know that the Percent of Americans who voted in the 2012 Presidential election was 57.5% (according to http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/). If we take the U.S. Presidential election as a benchmark Clamour votes are very well represented.

Do you have numbers on total unique votes?

I would also expect whoever has large numbers of stored keys (maybe the original developer(s)?) to come out of the woodworks and start to dig/dump. The next few weeks will be very revealing. I would love to believe in the honest nature of those who concocted this system of distribution under a cloak of "fairness" but I'd be fetching for straws.

When is the voted on petitions expected to be acted on?

Thanks for the update and fix Doog.

[dooglus]

Do you have numbers on total unique votes?

I would also expect whoever has large numbers of stored keys (maybe the original developer(s)?) to come out of the woodworks and start to dig/dump. The next few weeks will be very revealing. I would love to believe in the honest nature of those who concocted this system of distribution under a cloak of "fairness" but I'd be fetching for straws.

When is the voted on petitions expected to be acted on?

Thanks for the update and fix Doog.

I found and fixed a bug in my petition support counting code this morning. It was skipping some votes when it counted.

So for the last week Just-Dice mostly hadn't been voting, and when it was, the vote counting code was skipping some of them.

Both are fixed now, but we need to wait a week to get a good representative sample of the votes.

I can do something like this to show the support count over the last 500 blocks of all the petitions with more than 5% support:

$ clamd getsupport 5 500
{
  "threshold" : 5,
  "window" : 500,
  "endblock" : 779942,
  "startblock" : 779443,
  "support" : {
    "5afa074c" : 170,
    "694c26a6" : 26,
    "7a69a853" : 75,
    "ea06c089" : 74,
    "ff839af9" : 111
  }
}

That shows that 5afa (stop digging) has 170/500 or 34% support.

As I understand it, the voting runs forever and is intended to give everyone feedback of what the stakeholders support. So we see currently 34% of the stake weight is voting to end digging, and 66% of it isn't.

5afa074c has the support of 39.08% of the Just-Dice bankroll, but JD isn't 100% of the staking weight.

As for the developers claiming their massive premines, don't you think they would have done that already if they had a massive premine to claim? If I was a developer with thousands of CLAMs to dig up and I saw the price of CLAM sliding from 0.01 BTC to 0.001 BTC over a 3 month period I'm pretty sure I would have dug them up at that point.

[bytemycoin]

As I understand it, the voting runs forever and is intended to give everyone feedback of what the stakeholders support. So we see currently 34% of the stake weight is voting to end digging, and 66% of it isn't.

I understand waiting a week or more however:

I don't get it. How can any fair voting system take into account those who don't vote? When you say "66% of it isn't" is that not an incorrect statement if it is intending to mean they are against petition 5afa074c?  Even direct abstain votes does not mean they are against any specific petition.  

So this is starting to sound like there has never been any intentions to act on what the greater clam voting community wants. Emphasis on "clam voting community".  Those who don't vote, typically don't want a voice and as is in any truly fair voting system, they are not taken as part of the voting tallies. Else it calls to question the clamour voting system in general (or any voting system to take such an approach).

As for the developers and massive premines, that is a null issue. If this vote was never intended to be acted on, as it is becoming clear, and tallies are based on non voters...then we have exactly what the initial distribution has shown us:  An unfair system that does not support the vast number of newcomers to crypto, rewards criminals who in the past have setup fractional reserve systems and scammed the greater BTC/LTC/Doge community. Exposes anyone who presently supports the greater clams community as we have recently experienced. To quote the old lady in the commercial "None of this makes any sense."  

What really makes me smile is the moniker of "fair distribution"

This whole voting is...well,...a bit fishy.  What am I missing?

[bhokor]

Fair distribution is a complex concept, always will be advantages of someone, examples, people who buys knowing internal info, people who knew the thing before it will go up, a guy who had 25000 btc adds of some software development and now find he have thousands of clams, i mean really nothing can be completly fair, but i must to recognize probably until now dooglus aproximation have been the fairest way

[SuperClam]

I'm all out of CLAMs. I sold 50 btc at 0.00076 and about 50 btc more around 0.0008. That's it for me. The price should go up now. Great for those that got in at such a cheap price!

Good to hear, enjoy your Btc
Interesting recovery

Indeed... Polo's fees will add up quickly while you're faking market activity by buying your sell orders back.
Gullable as you may be.. your shillery makes you an accessory to this fraud/ crime.
Speaking of which..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=210646
Any day now with the taking down of your scam promo/sig, "Creative".

I'm Creatively moderating "dat sh*t".

"Bumping" your own, already non-productive, post doesn't make it any more productive.

Edit: Deleted a BayAreaCoins post as well. Summary: devs are scammers, posted deleted post to "Trust" of SuperClam account.

[SuperClam]

As I understand it, the voting runs forever and is intended to give everyone feedback of what the stakeholders support. So we see currently 34% of the stake weight is voting to end digging, and 66% of it isn't.

I understand waiting a week or more however:
I don't get it. How can any fair voting system take into account those who don't vote? When you say "66% of it isn't" is that not an incorrect statement if it is intending to mean they are against petition 5afa074c?  Even direct abstain votes does not mean they are against any specific petition. 
So this is starting to sound like there has never been any intentions to act on what the greater clam voting community wants. Emphasis on "clam voting community".  Those who don't vote, typically don't want a voice and as is in any truly fair voting system, they are not taken as part of the voting tallies. Else it calls to question the clamour voting system in general (or any voting system to take such an approach).
As for the developers and massive premines, that is a null issue. If this vote was never intended to be acted on, as it is becoming clear, and tallies are based on non voters...then we have exactly what the initial distribution has shown us:  An unfair system that does not support the vast number of newcomers to crypto, rewards criminals who in the past have setup fractional reserve systems and scammed the greater BTC/LTC/Doge community. Exposes anyone who presently supports the greater clams community as we have recently experienced. To quote the old lady in the commercial "None of this makes any sense." 
What really makes me smile is the moniker of "fair distribution"
This whole voting is...well,...a bit fishy.  What am I missing?

 
You are thinking in terms of 'voting'.
This is counter-intuitive and nuanced, but important: CLAMour is not a 'vote', but an expression of support.

In terms of our consensus network, it is a way to gather data on support for changes.
This same process would conventionally be completed via stakers reporting an update during a triggered fork (and likely still will, even given a CLAMour consensus).
The difference is that we are able to gauge this support in real-time and it can guide the conversation BEFORE an update has been painstakingly developed.

This is why the CLAMour system doesn't have defined start/end dates.
It was designed around the pattern of a triggered forking change.
An idea must convince the network that it is a secure and positive change.
Essentially, a staker expressing support for a CLAMour petition is symbolically reporting that they would update to implement the change.
This is preferable to the alternative: develop a forking change without this symbolic support and simply "hope" that everyone updates.

Since we are simulating an update-triggered forking change, those blocks staked which do not specifically support the change are by definition a stake in support of the status quo.

It allows us to speak intelligently with common terminology about actual provable data.
This is preferable to the alternative: arguing about who has the "support" of the network, without any definition or data on what "support" means.


We designed CLAMour around two core principles: that it be permission-less and provable.

Anyone can start a CLAMour petition, there are no rules concerning what is or isn't acceptable.
The fact that there are no start/end dates allows an individual or group to evangelize and convince others to join in and support the petition.

The "bus" rule necessitates that we try to ensure CLAM is resilient.
It would allow, for instance, a group of users to evangelize for a change which is not agreed to by the core development team.
Because of CLAMour, these users would have a method to prove to the community that there is widespread support for the change.
Those users could then release an update, without approval, and feel confident that the update would gain consensus on the network.