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

[tspacepilot]

This concentration of coins is intimidating for the new adopters, like me for example.
I really like the project, the people behind it and how the coin works, but how can I start to use it in a massive way (that will benefit the network) with my project if the 90% of all the minable coins per day are going to the same "company"

You could, for example, limitate your staking numbers of hours per day in order to give us some "grace" hours of "fair" mining. Like instead of 24 hours per day you could stake for 20.5, so at the end of the week we will get one full day of staking without your huge presence.
I really don't know if it makes any sense.

Bye

Its not his huge presence,  its all the people of just-dice. 

^^^This.  If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.  As it works now, he's doing some work for us (holding our coins securely and staking with them) but he's also getting some reward for that work (his 10% fee on profits, his usage of our money to bankroll his gambling site).  If he changes that, everyone's going to have to reevaluate.  My point is just that you shouldn't think of the just-dice bankroll as only belonging to dooglus, he certainly owns some (probably massive) percentage of it (i don't really know how much is owned by him, he releases investor amounts regularly), but in many ways, he's merely providing a service for many many people in the CLAM community.

[1713940681]

1713940681

[1713940681]

1713940681

[SuperClam]

It is morally untenable for Just-Dice to hold such a large percentage of the coin supply. 
It is equally morally untenable to take any step to 'acquisition' those coins. 
 
Those coins belong to the Just-Dice users and any attempt to change that would not only be 'wrong', but also erode the foundational trust that control on the chain is sacrosanct. 
This is of course ignoring the fact that any such change would be rejected by the staking majority, and user majority of the network. 
   
Rewarding 'active' nodes (which i have heard referred to as 'Proof-Of-Activity' and various other names) is a complicated topic. 
The network only knows that which is published on the chain. 
The concept of age is based on the time an output has remained, unmoved, as a recorded transaction on the chain. 
I am not aware of a secure method of verifying node operation. 
 
I don't believe the concern with Just-Dice is misplaced; removing trust from the system is an important goal and consideration. 
That said, one could argue that those coins exist in the control of Just-Dice through the aggregate choice of the network, and users trusting the service. 
 
"Just-Dice hurts the network!" 
The above argument becomes less clear when 'the network', made up of the users and holders of CLAM, has decided to trust JD of their own accord. 
 

[dooglus]

how can I start to use it in a massive way (that will benefit the network) with my project if the 90% of all the minable coins per day are going to the same "company"

85% of the blocks each day are staked by Just-Dice because 85% of the actively staking coins are working at Just-Dice. The 2nd biggest CLAM holder (Poloniex) doesn't stake their coins at all. If you buy up 10% of the CLAMs and start staking them, you will stake more than 10% of the blocks, because your 2nd biggest competitor (Poloniex) isn't even trying. That seems more than fair - you get more than your fair share of stake reward. It's unfair to Poloniex customers who are missing out on potential earnings, but they knew that when they deposited, so they can hardly complain.

You could, for example, limitate your staking numbers of hours per day in order to give us some "grace" hours of "fair" mining.

That would be unfair to the people trusting Just-Dice to stake for them. If I had to chose between staking my coins at Just-Dice (where they have 1 day off per week) and staking them at home (where they work 24/7) I would stake them at home.

Rewarding 'active' nodes (which i have heard referred to as 'Proof-Of-Activity' and various other names) is a complicated topic. 
The network only knows that which is published on the chain. 
The concept of age is based on the time an output has remained, unmoved, as a recorded transaction on the chain. 
I am not aware of a secure method of verifying node operation. 

Is "proof-of-activity" actively used on any existing blockchain that you are aware of?

I can imagine a system similar to the way that mining pools check that their members are actively mining, by issuing work that is easier than mining a full block, and counting up how many of these "shares" each miner in the pool solves. By having 'shares' on the CLAM network, which are 10 times easier to solve than actually staking a block, and which are worth nothing in terms of direct block reward, we have proof that a particular output is (or at least has been) "trying" to stake and so can give it increased weight. This weight boost could decay over time, requiring a regular stream of shares to be incoming in order to keep the boost in place.

Even if we figured out such a system, I don't think it would help. Just-Dice has a large pool of old, constantly-working outputs and so would probably benefit the most from having 'age' added back into the equation.

[smooth]

If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.

Maybe not a bad thing

[ccminer.cf]

If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.

Maybe not a bad thing

From my point of view not bad at all

[dooglus]

If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.

Maybe not a bad thing

From my point of view not bad at all

Thought experiment:

From your point of view what would change if instead of 1 entity staking 85% of the coins we had 100 entities each staking 0.85% of the coins?

Your share of the coins is the same in both cases. So how does it affect you at all?

What if the JD coins were split up into 100 separate wallets? Better? Worse? The same?

[SuperClam]

Is "proof-of-activity" actively used on any existing blockchain that you are aware of?

I can imagine a system similar to the way that mining pools check that their members are actively mining, by issuing work that is easier than mining a full block, and counting up how many of these "shares" each miner in the pool solves. By having 'shares' on the CLAM network, which are 10 times easier to solve than actually staking a block, and which are worth nothing in terms of direct block reward, we have proof that a particular output is (or at least has been) "trying" to stake and so can give it increased weight. This weight boost could decay over time, requiring a regular stream of shares to be incoming in order to keep the boost in place.

Even if we figured out such a system, I don't think it would help. Just-Dice has a large pool of old, constantly-working outputs and so would probably benefit the most from having 'age' added back into the equation.

 
 
I think, in the end, it doesn't matter if it is technically possible or not. 
It essentially grows out of a fundamental mis-conception: the idea that the number of 'nodes' is beneficial or improves security/trustlessness. 
 
The number of nodes, from a technical perspective, is a detriment to the efficiency of the network - with the exception of maybe redundant storage. 
Though, if you are concerned with making sure chain data is 'redundant' then you likely have bigger problems  
 
Unfortunately, many equate a 'node' with a 'person'. 
 
Additional participants ARE beneficial, of course. 
 
This is all of course similar to your last comment. 
One participant with 1 'node' or 'wallet' is little different than one participant with 100. 
 
 
 
In the end, I think the 'issue' of Just-Dice and network control is a matter of incentives. 

Code:

costOfStakingYourself = effortToSetItUp + abilityToKeepItSecure + costOfRunningStakeHardware;  
costOfStakingJustDice = (amountEarnedStaking * 0.1) + perceivedJustDiceRisk;  
  
if( costOfStakingYourself < costOfStakingJustDice ){
   doStakingYourself();
} else {
   doStakingOnJustDice();
}

 
 
So:

• Make it easier/user-friendly to set up a node and stake.
• Make it easier to understand how to keep a private node secure.
• Make the client more efficient to reduce the hardware needed to run a node.
• Make fee/subsidy adjustments such that the 'amountEarnedStaking' relates to/pays costs.

 
 
Just shooting from the hip here - regardless, it these situations are almost always a failure of incentives, however you frame it. 
 
Making the client more efficient is a step in the right direction. 
Not sure how far that gets us. 
Security is always a difficult topic to teach or even achieve, entirely. 
Making the client more efficient is not all that useful, considering it can run on pretty much anything at the moment, I would expect. 
I think some ground could be gained by better matching network fees to network costs - but, 'petitions' headed that direction haven't seemed to get any traction. 
 

I can imagine a system similar to the way that mining pools check that their members are actively mining, by issuing work that is easier than mining a full block, and counting up how many of these "shares" each miner in the pool solves. By having 'shares' on the CLAM network, which are 10 times easier to solve than actually staking a block, and which are worth nothing in terms of direct block reward, we have proof that a particular output is (or at least has been) "trying" to stake and so can give it increased weight. This weight boost could decay over time, requiring a regular stream of shares to be incoming in order to keep the boost in place.

Even if we figured out such a system, I don't think it would help. Just-Dice has a large pool of old, constantly-working outputs and so would probably benefit the most from having 'age' added back into the equation.

 
 
I like this concept. 
Would need to be careful that you don't end up regressing to PoW, of course. 
   
But, if we were going to go down this path and track 'shares', it might make more sense to solve the 'orphan' problem at the same time and go full-p2pool-esque?

[smooth]

If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.

Maybe not a bad thing

From my point of view not bad at all

Thought experiment:

From your point of view what would change if instead of 1 entity staking 85% of the coins we had 100 entities each staking 0.85% of the coins?

Your share of the coins is the same in both cases. So how does it affect you at all?

What if the JD coins were split up into 100 separate wallets? Better? Worse? The same?

100 wallets controlled by the same entity is the same.

100 wallets controlled by 100 independent entities makes the coin far more secure, and gives it the possibility to be taken seriously by more people who dismiss it now, and with good reason.

[andulolika]

If dooglus decided not to stake 24/7 then I think a lot of people would reevaluate whether or not we want him staking our coins for us.

Maybe not a bad thing

From my point of view not bad at all

Thought experiment:

From your point of view what would change if instead of 1 entity staking 85% of the coins we had 100 entities each staking 0.85% of the coins?

Your share of the coins is the same in both cases. So how does it affect you at all?

What if the JD coins were split up into 100 separate wallets? Better? Worse? The same?

100 wallets controlled by the same entity is the same.

100 wallets controlled by 100 independent entities makes the coin far more secure, and gives it the possibility to be taken seriously by more people who dismiss it now, and with good reason.

This would be more easier if its possible to stake on android.

[finrope]

I have my old doge wallet backup but there's no doge left in them. Do I still get clams?

No.  Obviously the wallet.dat has to contain private keys that hold funds.  DUH!!! OTHERWISE HOW WILL THEY STEAL YOUR MONEY.

You don't need to have doge to claim CLAMS. You just need the private key of the address to claim. Just ensure that you have used the address to do transactions before the date mentioned in the OP.

[jpcfan]

i just gamble and lose all the clam. so, i don't have to worry about stake

[seoincorporation]

Hi Clam community.

Some days ago i talk with "(43)xploited" on Just-dice about a "bug" or a problem i found with the clam client. He told me it will be fixed soon, but i want to post it here for the log.

The problem is the next one:

When i use; clamd gettransaction... i get the next info:

Code:

$ ./clamd gettransaction 7a65529c661eebcc8922b5b55ca5d5053892c0103cdec620ef73aa1f1d1489d9
{
    "txid" : "7a65529c661eebcc8922b5b55ca5d5053892c0103cdec620ef73aa1f1d1489d9",
    "version" : 2,
    "time" : 1456856805,
    "locktime" : 0,
    "clam-speech" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Zapatismo",
    "vin" : [
        {
            "txid" : "4ab7c3d1d7a4ab9a4959a2638bf46c9ddf4bf47dc45eb1b25c76b4f971b42336",
            "vout" : 0,
            "scriptSig" : {
                "asm" : "304402200c2a9525ca84ec47ef754ce9b956808d49eae3089d7b25b62cb49087a763149502200506c87d7d6b9bdaf6efb3c5494cea14017a9e34131adba0c81c0d72c70a67df01 03fde2f6519b25ce78fdf6315cbbc403b8100bd540a37aae650e3ee8a2afbdb792",
                "hex" : "47304402200c2a9525ca84ec47ef754ce9b956808d49eae3089d7b25b62cb49087a763149502200506c87d7d6b9bdaf6efb3c5494cea14017a9e34131adba0c81c0d72c70a67df012103fde2f6519b25ce78fdf6315cbbc403b8100bd540a37aae650e3ee8a2afbdb792"
            },
            "sequence" : 4294967295
        }
    ],
    "vout" : [
        {
            "value" : 0.50000000,
            "n" : 0,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 b9693d8f34a7e861d2dc06b48c1ab1be8fca3573 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                "reqSigs" : 1,
                "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                "addresses" : [
                    "xRCzybrSG4SJAskAXzfmF4t1VyUFDydiPJ"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "value" : 7.58365000,
            "n" : 1,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 71a040fe913f81b67a2d53651cb1e34cd97d86a6 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                "reqSigs" : 1,
                "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                "addresses" : [
                    "xJfSEBvoBjnePbw5g1BLjPo4UAyhVTvY4V"
                ]
            }
        }
    ],
    "blockhash" : "7f657befbf9dfc85b9d6eac34bca4eb0c5541ba1634f29e07a3de382f6ec4d10",
    "confirmations" : 87567
}

But if you see, that command give all the info about the transaction less FEES, and it should give that information too. I think the fees is a high priority information from a transaction, and i can't find the way to get that info from the clam core.

If i use the command "listtransactions", it show the fees from the "send" transactions, but not from the "receive" ones.

Code:

$ ./clamd listtransactions
[
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQay6tj3c95Je3QBbkFUzx89MGVAyhfymZ",
        "category" : "receive",
        "amount" : 2.99990000,
        "confirmations" : 6175,
        "blockhash" : "7043a8cc73474ac79556c944ba60f74924ba0c907751dc4f3766c71d26ba8237",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1461782560,
        "txid" : "e04c329a73ad087e29e2349f836d855c78d822b3af4d6bde27bd664f35966c63",
        "time" : 1461782590,
        "timereceived" : 1461782590,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Producerism"
    },
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQay6tj3c95Je3QBbkFUzx89MGVAyhfymZ",
        "category" : "receive",
        "amount" : 0.99990000,
        "confirmations" : 6181,
        "blockhash" : "166d73e12155b4a3a8dd47dc5191d2e416dfa1f923c35ab1cb23c051d9b48cd4",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1461782048,
        "txid" : "f72d8f93eb14a43a8ee082f51ab79f55006cd5eed21a9c4bb9866e0c9f2ff45d",
        "time" : 1461782590,
        "timereceived" : 1461783057,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Autonomism"
    },
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQay6tj3c95Je3QBbkFUzx89MGVAyhfymZ",
        "category" : "receive",
        "amount" : 0.99990000,
        "confirmations" : 6159,
        "blockhash" : "0678269f830d4cfc3da5e8790ea8faee6deed3c764fc2f44f1901fce3c97291d",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1461783456,
        "txid" : "7c6a62d7425b5ba94787720af89e1f3083df31e9625b844dfedac11c92b7171c",
        "time" : 1461783365,
        "timereceived" : 1461783365,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Anarcho-communism"
    },
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQay6tj3c95Je3QBbkFUzx89MGVAyhfymZ",
        "category" : "receive",
        "amount" : 3.35119702,
        "confirmations" : 6159,
        "blockhash" : "0678269f830d4cfc3da5e8790ea8faee6deed3c764fc2f44f1901fce3c97291d",
        "blockindex" : 3,
        "blocktime" : 1461783456,
        "txid" : "c84f803b37482784881c998a8cf4e0ca21432d754678eabff72642ad71aefb50",
        "time" : 1461783392,
        "timereceived" : 1461783392,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Theodemocracy"
    },
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQzkZdiuodaAXoB1XJc3YmihQe7v6bAfxJ",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -8.35079702,
        "fee" : -0.00010000,
        "confirmations" : 5048,
        "blockhash" : "5a35fc5fc4f8800dad18141d5f04af39fb5f2be1e8d9307492a3433eda135bbf",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1461851280,
        "txid" : "42350fdd3a220b50a7bd696c8689ac6c0e7ba689d56a2c4493fd3953780b0b9e",
        "time" : 1461850013,
        "timereceived" : 1461850013,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Political Freedom: Western Marxism"
    },
    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "xQay6tj3c95Je3QBbkFUzx89MGVAyhfymZ",
        "category" : "receive",
        "amount" : 2.99990000,
        "confirmations" : 3794,
        "blockhash" : "718235d6d1134903f167a37c6e710f87bf864a8d52a20aa3105e401d7cc685ea",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1461927008,
        "txid" : "b5ad003c2db40e5f99af0cabf55a0ae785c0511477f4c6ffff75916f8a40da1a",
        "time" : 1461926854,
        "timereceived" : 1461926854,
        "tx-comment" : "Expression of Religious Freedom: Behmenism"
    }
]

I have a command to read the fees from any transaction:

Code:

$ lynx --dump http://khashier.com/tx/09b97b85e398c9af09a8de90b3780bb835bfc8d71d9daa73c369f04b5d813144 | grep "Fee   " | cut -d " " -f19

But that way i read it from khashier and the idea is to get all the info from the core.

Hope you can fix this for the next update.

[Johnny00]

Bitdice also accepts clams and stakes

[andulolika]

Hello,
i just join in clam community,how can i earn clam for free?

Dig it, faucet it, gamble it, stake it or buy it.
Maybe, just maybe, clamgaming is buying steam games very cheap, i have no idea.

[tspacepilot]

I have a command to read the fees from any transaction:

Code:

$ lynx --dump http://khashier.com/tx/09b97b85e398c9af09a8de90b3780bb835bfc8d71d9daa73c369f04b5d813144 | grep "Fee   " | cut -d " " -f19

Wow, I haven't used lynx in a while.  That's fun to see man.

[mmfiore]

Can someone please explain the clams staking system. I have 100 clams how long before I will see a stake? How much will stake. How does the lottery system work for clams?

Thanks

[andulolika]

Can someone please explain the clams staking system. I have 100 clams how long before I will see a stake? How much will stake. How does the lottery system work for clams?

Thanks

im pretty sure you can see the answer of that is just a few pages before this one, yet you need a bit over 1000 clams to stake 1 clam a day.

[tspacepilot]

Can someone please explain the clams staking system. I have 100 clams how long before I will see a stake? How much will stake. How does the lottery system work for clams?

Thanks

I'm pretty sure they did away with the lottery after about 1 year (maybe less).  IIRC, someone found a way to game the lottery or it wasn't as fair as they thought it was.

[zazarb]

With staking I also confusing, after  a break I put
simultaneously some clam to my wallet.
Some wallet , three different address, almost equal amount, strange but until now one address got reward 6 time, while another
only 2 time. Why such a big difference?

[AleScamHole]

With staking I also confusing, after  a break I put
simultaneously some clam to my wallet.
Some wallet , three different address, almost equal amount, strange but until now one address got reward 6 time, while another
only 2 time. Why such a big difference?

wouldn't that just be normal variance of the network weight constantly changing?
i never seen a static pos coin give same stakes everyday ;p