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

[paulc010]

Here's a weird one. I have an address in my wallet that has aged nicely but that's not staking, well not since this:

http://khashier.com:2750/tx/d0c9d9695110200d714a70b65a1ec42f4281988835cf0035d0119243134ec6f3

It shows as "Not yet redeemed"...??!

Any ideas?

EDIT: I ran the client with -salvagewallet but all that seems to have done is mess up the addresses (many more appearing as change even though they were sent to multiple individual addresses) and removed the labels :/

Sorted out in my head by dooglus in IRC. All normal

Going back to chillin' with my CLAMS....

[ari14]

If I have the address A with 2 nodes, one with 5 CLAM and other with 3 CLAM; if I select the node of 3 CLAM and send it to another address, the age of node of 5 CLAM will be reseted ?

Thanks.

Addresses almost never matter. It's all about the individual outputs. Your 3 and your 5 are separate things with their own ages.

The client will probably merge them into a single output when either of them stakes, so you might want to keep them in different addresses. That will stop them being merged.

Thanks !

[dooglus]

Here's a weird one. I have an address in my wallet that has aged nicely but that's not staking, well not since this:

http://khashier.com:2750/tx/d0c9d9695110200d714a70b65a1ec42f4281988835cf0035d0119243134ec6f3

It shows as "Not yet redeemed"...??!

Any ideas?

Sorted out in my head by dooglus in IRC. All normal

Here's the IRC log, in case anyone else is interested in how we sorted it out:

01:42 < dooglus> paul: http://khashier.com:2750/address/xL1vCQ2Xbwg5mz7tvte4hXcMfBKKfgQr4D
01:42 < dooglus> you see it's been staking regularly
01:42 < dooglus> every 4 days or so
01:42 < dooglus> it's due...
01:43 < dooglus> 'not yet redeemed' just means the current output hasn't staked yet
01:43 < dooglus> (or otherwise been spent)
01:43 < paulc010> Yes it was. Maybe it's my ignorance of how these things work but I added new coins in 5 coin piles and they've staked before those.
01:44 < dooglus> it's random
01:44 < paulc010> Ah - right that makes sense. I went to check on others but the explorer was down
01:45 < paulc010> See I'm thinking 5 coins at 3k confirms would stake after 3.4 coins at almost 8k confirms
01:45 < dooglus> see this one:
01:45 < dooglus> http://khashier.com:2750/tx/36012e5359b1834e20a45d6dec3e1aff81d9da76c96b6860dc24640b564e9534#i0
01:45 < paulc010> But two of them staked today
01:45 < dooglus> 130 different 5 CLAM outputs
01:45 < dooglus> some staked, some didn't (yet)
01:46 < dooglus> (looking at the 'redeemed at input' column of the list of outputs)
01:46 < paulc010> (that should be 4.3 not 3.4 of course)
01:46 < dooglus> every second, each output has a chance of staking, proportional to its age and its size
01:46 < paulc010> Yup - I see it now. Just didn't have a clue what that meant
01:47 < paulc010> Hence the CPU load you mentioned in the thread
01:48 < dooglus> the 'not yet redeemed' turns into a link to the transaction in which they staked (or were spent) once they stake (or are spent)
01:48 < paulc010> Got it
01:48 < dooglus> so click the link on output 13 - you see the 5 staking into two 2.55's
01:48 < dooglus> (nether of which has since yet staked again)
01:49 < dooglus> if you trace http://khashier.com:2750/tx/b74eb0568ed7727c3da8c40eee8083eed615ddc7ed2bbe5a29872965a9f919fc you'll see it split over and over as it stakes
01:49 < paulc010> OK
01:49 < dooglus> halving each time - until I finally remembered it when it was mature and split it into those 5's
01:50 < dooglus> oh, I got output 2 right away, but not output 1
01:50 < paulc010> I was about to ask why it split into 5s lol
01:51 < paulc010> Normal behaviour would be for it to halve each staking, yes?
01:51 < paulc010> Ah, looking at the other one it's halving

[istvandv]

thanks for sharing the IRC logs, i was not online to see that, very informative

and thanks for all the contribution, dooglus, i keep learning day by day 

[almightyruler]

I use the daemon rather than the -qt client, so I believe I'm missing out on coin control functionality. I just inadvertently destroyed half of my weight by trying to split one of my unspent outputs into 4 pieces (was hoping it would split the output with the least confirms, but instead it gobbled up one of the oldest in the very first transaction.)

I thought that perhaps using multiple accounts and 'sendfrom' may solve this problem, but stitching together a transaction would probably ignore accounts and just use all available outputs, correct?

If so, I guess creating raw transactions are the only solution... but the potential for mistakes - such as forgetting the change address and giving the remnant balance as a fee to the next person who mines a block - seems high with this one.

[dooglus]

If so, I guess creating raw transactions are the only solution... but the potential for mistakes - such as forgetting the change address and giving the remnant balance as a fee to the next person who mines a block - seems high with this one.

That's what I do:

cc sendrawtransaction $(cc signrawtransaction $(cc createrawtransaction '[{"txid":"5c4a0eee3cce1c82b460df0b527570f00ce5f02f5378d88c8ec56cae0ee713a9","vout":1},{"txid":"5c4a0eee3cce1c82b460df0b527570f00ce5f02f5378d88c8ec56cae0ee713a9","vout":2}]' '{"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":5,"x9S2gMQQ5iKrP9SwRJ6PF9Q3wqDxRegc2w":2.13990000}') | grep hex | cut -d'"' -f4)

[almightyruler]

The client is open source. I changed my copy to stop it combining outputs when they stake. The default behaviour is to combine all the outputs at the address that is staking into a single large output (up to 1000 CLAMs), thereby destroying the age of all those outputs for no benefit.

That may have made sense when the reward for staking was proportional to the amount being staked, but now that staking rewards are independent of the amount being staked it makes no sense at all the combine your outputs.

Any plans to offer this change for a future version? I'm familiar with *coind source in general, but I'm not yet comfortable with the inner workings of creating transactions (as evidenced by my above failure.)

edit: even a change in algorithm which prefers newer outputs when creating a transaction would probably help the network, in the long run.

[dayandnight]

The concept of proof of chain and proof of pearl is intresting.will notice!

[istvandv]

The client is open source. I changed my copy to stop it combining outputs when they stake. The default behaviour is to combine all the outputs at the address that is staking into a single large output (up to 1000 CLAMs), thereby destroying the age of all those outputs for no benefit.

That may have made sense when the reward for staking was proportional to the amount being staked, but now that staking rewards are independent of the amount being staked it makes no sense at all the combine your outputs.

Any plans to offer this change for a future version? I'm familiar with *coind source in general, but I'm not yet comfortable with the inner workings of creating transactions (as evidenced by my above failure.)

edit: even a change in algorithm which prefers newer outputs when creating a transaction would probably help the network, in the long run.

if i have my info right, devs are updating wallet to improve further the algorithm for auto combining and splitting the coins to maximize staking efficiency as well as having the option to manually control how coins will split/combine

[dooglus]

Any plans to offer this change for a future version? I'm familiar with *coind source in general, but I'm not yet comfortable with the inner workings of creating transactions (as evidenced by my above failure.)

Oh, it was pretty trivial.

Edit src/wallet.cpp and change:

int64_t nStakeCombineThreshold = 1000 * COIN;

to

int64_t nStakeCombineThreshold = 0 * COIN;

[Karn]

ok so make more addys in my wallet and send X number of coins to each for best staking? I only have 15 so any thing that gives me a slightly higher chance of a lotto block would be worth doing.

[creativecuriosity]

Just a notice to everyone!

Expect the kHashier.com multi-pool to go offline for a moment later this evening, possibly quite soon.

x11 is being added.

It is expected to come back up (and stay up) quite quickly - but we all know how updates go.

[Karn]

Just a notice to everyone!

Expect the kHashier.com multi-pool to go offline for a moment later this evening, possibly quite soon.

x11 is being added.

It is expected to come back up (and stay up) quite quickly - but we all know how updates go.

very nice now I can put my miners on Clams

[seedtrue]

Guys, I am a little worried that if we do not get listed on more exchanges, Clams will follow the same fate as Huntercoin. While they are completely different in basically every aspect, the one thing in common is they both are only listed on poloniex (Huntercoin is on more exchanges now, but only after the price completely bottomed out). We should petition more exchanges(Bittrex, Mintpal, C-cex, Cryptsy) and get them to list Clams.

[istvandv]

Any plans to offer this change for a future version? I'm familiar with *coind source in general, but I'm not yet comfortable with the inner workings of creating transactions (as evidenced by my above failure.)

Oh, it was pretty trivial.

Edit src/wallet.cpp and change:

int64_t nStakeCombineThreshold = 1000 * COIN;

to

int64_t nStakeCombineThreshold = 0 * COIN;

thanks for sharing this dooglus, if i ever i hit a big lotto block im sure to use this, as for now, my amount of clams is still manageble with having multiple addresses approach

[IXC2XIC]

Clams?

Proof of Pearl?

 

Worth it just for the laugh.

[almightyruler]

Guys, I am a little worried that if we do not get listed on more exchanges, Clams will follow the same fate as Huntercoin.

+1

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. A coin that I took over is listed on only one exchange, and was recently disabled by that exchange for nearly 7 weeks. Being off the air for that long basically killed the value.

[fritzi]

Would be better if CLAM get listed on much bigger exchange to increase volume and investors interest.

[BTCTIME247]

oysters make pearls, not clams. 

[creativecuriosity]

oysters make pearls, not clams. 

Not true

Pearl of Lao Tzu