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

[paulc010]

Damn I missed this....... updating now :/

[1713514139]

1713514139

[1713514139]

1713514139

[almightyruler]

Damn I missed this....... updating now :/

I missed it too. Perhaps this thread topic can be updated so that it displays more prominently when people view "new replies"

Hopefully I can use an earlier snapshot of the blockchain so I don't need to delete and sync from scratch.

On that note. @tryphe, if the code is being rewritten, please considering making recovering from forks easier. Perhaps in the -qt client, when a fork goes beyond a few PoS bocks fighting it out over a couple of minutes, show a dialog warning that the local blockchain does not match the preferred blockchain, and ask if the user wants to roll back to the most recent hardened checkpoint, and sync from there.

[almightyruler]

Has the block explorer been updated? I'm not sure if my updated client has managed to resolve the fork and hop onto the correct chain, or both the block explorer and my client are on the "old" fork.

./clamd getblockhash 170571
e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

[SuperClam]

Damn I missed this....... updating now :/

I missed it too. Perhaps this thread topic can be updated so that it displays more prominently when people view "new replies"
Hopefully I can use an earlier snapshot of the blockchain so I don't need to delete and sync from scratch.

Sorry, with this being a time-sensitive update and between Twitter, Reddit, Bitcointalk.org, the website, etc. we tried to get the information out there as much as possible.  I appended 'Mandatory Update' to the post topic; I assume that was the suggestion?

Has the block explorer been updated? I'm not sure if my updated client has managed to resolve the fork and hop onto the correct chain, or both the block explorer and my client are on the "old" fork.
./clamd getblockhash 170571
e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

Poloniex and the block explorer were both verified as being on the right chain immediately after the forking block @ 170,000.  Just checked again now, and khashier.com:2750/chain/Clams does indeed appear to still be correct.

[SuperClam]

Has the block explorer been updated? I'm not sure if my updated client has managed to resolve the fork and hop onto the correct chain, or both the block explorer and my client are on the "old" fork.
./clamd getblockhash 170571
e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

Block #170571
hash: e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

Looks good

[paulc010]

Mine re-synced. I came looking here because I was hitting lots of blocks and my balance was going up too fast...... now I know why, it was 10 times too fast

[dooglus]

I'm seeing a LOT of orphan blocks in my debug.log:

received block bbd08b69888d5911f1d8
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=d71bb0f13f3e2b7cd660
received block d71bb0f13f3e2b7cd660
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=f195e50052dd11534ad7
received block f195e50052dd11534ad7
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=f16a05c3f9b0a161146d
received block f16a05c3f9b0a161146d
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=2c7ef5a2a52b11156f08
received block 2c7ef5a2a52b11156f08
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=9de82b7d4692326d374a
received block 9de82b7d4692326d374a
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=8aa7b6dd87ae1598585a
received block 8aa7b6dd87ae1598585a
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=2bd912c37d4d31ef351d
received block 2bd912c37d4d31ef351d
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=c80684c39b4f841a903f

I guess that's just someone staking on the wrong fork, right?

I'm on the same fork as poloniex and khashier - but it seems some big stakeholder didn't switch forks yet.

[paulc010]

I mined about 12 blocks on the old chain before I swapped over, although the network weight was still about 300k when I switched.

It was just main.cpp that changed wasn't it?

[dooglus]

I mined about 12 blocks on the old chain before I swapped over, although the network weight was still about 300k when I switched.

It was just main.cpp that changed wasn't it?

Yes, I believe so.

Here: https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/commit/ecef9cee2e8fd7a4c47de8809e9d4cccd231f00f

[Karn]

Crap just updated, sorry to find out about the exploit. Good job catching it so fast

[ButtCrack]

Has the block explorer been updated? I'm not sure if my updated client has managed to resolve the fork and hop onto the correct chain, or both the block explorer and my client are on the "old" fork.
./clamd getblockhash 170571
e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

Block #170571
hash: e0d490a9b1e46a369b8344781f280119636ae48b718568dc1542c54968f3bde5

Looks good

Can you post url of block exporer on OP ?
khashier.com:2750/chain/Clams
What is current recommended stack size and how long does it take to stake ?

Thanks !

[dooglus]

What is current recommended stack size and how long does it take to stake ?

I was intending to ask the same thing, re. optimal stack size.

The network difficulty target hovers around 200*2^224, meaning that on average it takes an output of weight N CLAM-days
2^256 / (N*200*2^224) = 2^32 / 200N = 21474836/N seconds = 248/N days to stake (assuming it never gets any weightier, which it of course will)

So a 5 CLAM output that is a week old (weight = 35) takes around 7 days to stake if it keeps that weight.

This looks like a dead end. Skip it if you like...

I guess the first thing to do is to find out how to calculate the expected time-to-stake taking the constant ageing into account:

Suppose we have an output with value V, and a network difficulty target of 200*2^224

For the first 1/V days it has a weight of 0 (weights are rounded down to an integer number of CLAM-days), so it can't stake.
ie. the probability of it staking in the first 1/V days is 0.

For the 2nd 1/V days it has a weight of 1, and has a 200*2^224/2^256 = 200/2^32 probability of staking each second.
The probability of it staking in the 2nd 1/V days is 1-(probability of it not staking in that period)
1/V days is 86400/V seconds, so that's:
= 1 - ((1-(200/2^32))^(86400/V))

For the 3rd 1/V days, weight = 2, probability of staking in any given second is 2*200/2^32,
and so the probability of it staking in the 3rd 1/V days is (1 - ((1-(400/2^32))^(86400/V)))

... and this feels like it's going nowhere.

Can someone with a clue help me out please?

The big picture:

No output gains any "weight" for the first 4 hours - it has 4 hours taken off its age before the weight calculation is done.

No output can stake until it is 'mature'. Staking makes it immature. It needs 500 confirmations after staking before it can stake again. 500 confirmations should take over 8 hours, so the 4 hours in the previous point should never be the limiting factor other than for recently moved (as opposed to staked) outputs. This probably puts an upper limit on the optimal output size. If I put all my CLAMs into a single large output, it will probably stake not long after it has its 500 confirmations, but then I have to wait another 8 hours for it to get another 500 confirmations, so I'm limited to staking a few times per day.

Weights are rounded down to the next integer CLAM-day. So if you split your outputs into 0.001 CLAM pieces, each one will take 1000 days before it reaches a weight of 1, and so won't be able to stake for a few years. This puts a lower limit on the optimal output size.

Perhaps this means that the optimal size is that which reaches 1 CLAM-day of weight just as the 500 confirmations are reached? 500 confirmation is meant to take 8.3333 hours, and 4 hours are taken off the age, so I want my output to have a weight of 1 when its effective age is 4.3333 hours. So its value needs to be 24/4.33333 = 5.54 CLAMs.

Thoughts?

Edit: of course, as they stake, the outputs will grow in size. We can't set them all to 5.54 CLAMs and expect them to stay at that size. Perhaps it's best to set them to 4 CLAMs, leave them to grow to 7 CLAMs, then when they reach 8, split them into two 4's and let them start over?

[Arux]

i mined a 1.0015 clams block reward  (#172760 and i'm on the correct fork)
look like a smal loto reward but technically, that shouldn't be possible.

[paulc010]

You still get fees too which may account for it.

@dooglus I'm using mainly 2.5 CLAM piles now but not sure if it's staking any better/worse than it was at 5 CLAM piles. I have some remaining piles of 5 CLAMs that have a weight of  > 100 and there have been some 2.6 and 2.7 CLAM piles with much lower weight stake before them.....

I'm just going for lots of outputs = greater chance of getting a stake.

[dooglus]

You still get fees too which may account for it.

@dooglus I'm using mainly 2.5 CLAM piles now but not sure if it's staking any better/worse than it was at 5 CLAM piles. I have some remaining piles of 5 CLAMs that have a weight of  > 100 and there have been some 2.6 and 2.7 CLAM piles with much lower weight stake before them.....

I'm just going for lots of outputs = greater chance of getting a stake.

You're right, that will have been transaction fees from the transaction(s) included in the block.

On average your 5 CLAM outputs will stake twice as quickly as your 2.5 CLAM outputs, but you have half as many of them, so it balances out.

And while you're staking, you get a small chance of staking each second. The chance is bigger for bigger piles, and for older piles, but is still pretty tiny. It's possible you'll get lucky and stake very quickly, but it's also possible it will take much longer than expected. Your weighty 5 CLAM outputs can take longer to stake than your lower weight 2.6 CLAM piles in the same way that a guy who buys 1 lottery ticket per week can win the lottery before a guy who buys 10 tickets per week.

[StakeHunter]

Any way to get to know how many CLAMS are "active" in the wild
I know there are millions possibly, but it would be nice to determine how many are staking...

[garthkiser]

Any way to get to know how many CLAMS are "active" in the wild
I know there are millions possibly, but it would be nice to determine how many are staking...

There's a bot in the CLAMS IRC channel that displays blockchain info. Go to: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=clams

Then type "&help" to list all the commands.

"&clamsupply" shows the following:

<SuperClam> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[19:43] <SuperClam>                                                                                             
[19:43] <SuperClam>                          Current CLAMS in Circulation(estimate): 124019.35870633 Clams
[19:43] <SuperClam>                                                                                             
[19:43] <SuperClam> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[19:43] <SuperClam>   This information regardling currently claimed clams is an estimate based on moved piles of coins.
[19:43] <SuperClam>   There is no way to determine if a clam has been claimed until it has been moved on the chain
[19:43] <SuperClam>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[19:43] <SuperClam>  Lottery Winnings: 58934.84937575 Clams
[19:43] <SuperClam>  Staking Earning: 10038.87704156 Clams
[19:43] <SuperClam>  Amount Claimed: 50904.10229422 Clams, 11053 Addresses

[Thirdspace]

No wonder my client stuck resynching, I just realized we got a hard fork. I am downloading the new client now.
what should I do if my blockchain already at 170980? do I need to redownload the whole blockchain again (as in delete the %appdata% folder)
or the new client will take care of that and resynch, deletes blocks & reconnects the chain automatically? (would save me some bandwidth)

so I just need to overwrite my current CLAM directory by unzipping the new client to old directory, right?
no need to move away wallet.dat and other things?
sorry for the newbie questions... I've never done this before

[dooglus]

No wonder my client stuck resynching, I just realized we got a hard fork. I am downloading the new client now.
what should I do if my blockchain already at 170980? do I need to redownload the whole blockchain again (as in delete the %appdata% folder)
or the new client will take care of that and resynch, deletes blocks & reconnects the chain automatically? (would save me some bandwidth)

so I just need to overwrite my current CLAM directory by unzipping the new client to old directory, right?
no need to move away wallet.dat and other things?
sorry for the newbie questions... I've never done this before

I don't know if it will resync automatically without having to do a whole new blockchain download from scratch, but I expect it will. It's worth a try.

It's always worth making a backup of your wallet.dat somewhere safe occasionally, just in case.

[StakeHunter]

Thanks garthkiser