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

[chilly2k]

I completely forgot about this one.  I might have a BTC wallet that works with this.  What are the average amount coins sent to each wallet?  23?

    I averaged 4.1 per.  But I didn't have much in any of my wallets. 

Than my next question is this...what is the point for 4 clams?

No offense to the dev.  I remember when I first read about this and thought it was a novel idea.  It just seems like the effort to claim the clams is better spent elsewhere...

   That was also for a very small balance, and the total for about 20 minutes work was 12.3 clams.  Plus this is a pretty active community and I'm a sucker for POS coins.  And I liked the way they did the distribution.    And as time goes on, and the value goes up, you might just decide it's now worth your time to dig up those clams.  Just hope you don't delete those wallets before that happens. 

[MemoryShock]

What is the point of those 4 sentences?

No offence to the poster.

It just seems like the effort to post that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Would you prefer if every address was given 40 CLAMs? Or 400? 4000?

Do you realise it wouldn't have made any difference at all, since it would effectively just be a relabelling? Much like using "bits" instead of "bitcoins", and having one be worth a million of the other.

It was an honest question/rumination.

I don't really like getting involved in threads if I don't intend on being a part of the community.  If the difference is moot and the Clams are better left unclaimed as opposed to purchasing on an exchange than why wouldn't I do that?  Would that not be better for the community at this point?

Honest question...and I have no preference on the bits debate since I have no issues with the distribution model.  I was posting at that time with a 'bit' of ignorance which has been correctedish...

[SuperClam]

What is the point of those 4 sentences?
No offence to the poster.
It just seems like the effort to post that would have been better spent elsewhere.
Would you prefer if every address was given 40 CLAMs? Or 400? 4000?
Do you realise it wouldn't have made any difference at all, since it would effectively just be a relabelling? Much like using "bits" instead of "bitcoins", and having one be worth a million of the other.

It was an honest question/rumination.
I don't really like getting involved in threads if I don't intend on being a part of the community.  If the difference is moot and the Clams are better left unclaimed as opposed to purchasing on an exchange than why wouldn't I do that?  Would that not be better for the community at this point?
Honest question...and I have no preference on the bits debate since I have no issues with the distribution model.  I was posting at that time with a 'bit' of ignorance which has been correctedish...

I suppose the answer to that question is a personal one.


A couple of things to remember:

There were over 3.1 million balance holding addresses when the chains were analyzed in May.

Every time coins are sent, your wallet creates a "change" address in the background.  This suggests that many users will receive more than one distribution each.  Especially those who follow best practices, such as creating a unique receive address for each incoming transaction.

Most "altcoins" are held by a few people, and thus the percentage that each of those people hold of the total money supply is certainly larger.

At the same time, the total CLAMS in circulation estimate is still below 150,000 the last time I checked... suggesting that though the number might be small, the distribution at the present moment is also quite small.

Just a few thoughts  
Welcome to the CLAMS thread, MemoryShock.

[ymod123]

any new wallet update? my wallet still not synching...

[ButtCrack]

any new wallet update? my wallet still not synching...

I assume you have connections and run windows ?

Try this :
Locate directory of wallet.dat.
Delete everything except wallet.dat.
Copy wallet.dat to a safe place.
Create text file with name "Clam.conf" in that directory.
Open text file with notepad and insert follwing lines :

connect=84.194.247.232:31174
connect=23.92.210.2:31174
connect=54.75.227.85:38343
connect=104.131.59.43:53103
connect=77.247.181.165:65190
connect=162.218.65.19:45406
connect=96.246.211.120:19476
connect=83.86.189.163:58108
connect=93.103.131.59:53324
connect=71.188.55.212:31174
connect=76.94.201.185:36079
connect=109.195.211.62:50318
connect=86.58.104.183:49860
connect=203.20.114.252:31174
connect=108.195.138.58:60527
connect=193.166.139.206:55786
connect=78.134.3.254:63941
connect=198.245.60.38:53497
connect=24.96.235.190:61000
connect=108.237.13.94:34724
connect=71.241.130.246:31174
connect=198.245.60.38:55364
connect=203.174.191.230:50533
connect=69.131.59.58:4719
connect=24.67.30.88:51620
connect=89.88.199.104:51398
connect=37.209.45.163:49312
connect=108.227.82.11:50317
connect=108.91.73.3:63989
connect=73.55.207.245:64773
connect=80.195.253.183:31174
connect=95.91.224.82:11614

These nodes are on the right chain, and should get your wallet synced.
Open help > debug window so you can check block count going up.
If it does not, wait for 30 min - 1 hour.
Still not going up ?
Close wallet and restart.
Repeat if syncing stalls.
Let me know if it worked.

[almightyruler]

connect=84.194.247.232:31174
connect=23.92.210.2:31174
connect=54.75.227.85:38343
connect=104.131.59.43:53103
[...]

Just a quick note: if the IP doesn't have the default port then it's probably an outbound connection, and any attempt to connect to that IP (inbound) on that port is likely to fail. Best to omit the port when specifying addnode/connect parameters. I understand this was probably a copy and paste of your getpeerinfo output, just pointing out that potential problem, for future reference.

[tryphe]

You probably want to use -addnode and not -connect, because connect implies a set exclusive peer list (i.e. you won't connect to any other peers). Or you can just remove them from the .conf after you load it, as the valid ones will now be in peers.dat

[Thirdspace]

You probably want to use -addnode and not -connect, because connect implies a set exclusive peer list (i.e. you won't connect to any other peers). Or you can just remove them from the .conf after you load it, as the valid ones will now be in peers.dat

maybe that is what he intended to do... only connect to exclusive peer (that he believes on the main/correct chain)
I actually tried removing .conf after that and started the client again, and it still re-connects to certain clients on wrong fork again
I think because it always ask for more new peers from the connected peers to propagate the network
How can I tell? because when I removed .conf my upload bandwidth went crazy again...
all connected peers are all different than those exclusive list I connected earlier
and I noticed 1 of the connected peer height is way below (is at 173217) and stay like that for days as I remember
also a few connected nodes are at "startingheight" : -1 I doubt that means he just started.
What exactly height -1 means here?
in .conf file, is there a way to block certain peer? something like perma-banned until we removed it in the future

[SuperClam]

We will be releasing an update this weekend which will fix at least three ongoing issues/attacks on the CLAM network - including the flooding issue.


I know it is difficult, but please attempt to cope via some of the suggested methods in the thread until then.  About 95% of the testing has been completed and the update is right around the corner.

[ButtCrack]

connect=84.194.247.232:31174
connect=23.92.210.2:31174
connect=54.75.227.85:38343
connect=104.131.59.43:53103
[...]

Just a quick note: if the IP doesn't have the default port then it's probably an outbound connection, and any attempt to connect to that IP (inbound) on that port is likely to fail. Best to omit the port when specifying addnode/connect parameters. I understand this was probably a copy and paste of your getpeerinfo output, just pointing out that potential problem, for future reference.

Damn there goes my reputation !
But yes, it was indeed a quick copy and paste action and a quick clean up with notepad.

With incorrect or no port forwarding, incomming connects are useless.
If correct, incomming are also usefull.
Normally port nr, can or should be deleted, since ppl might change these on the fly.
And the wallet has no problems sorting out which port to connect to since that info is updated whenever there is peer exchange info.
Or more simply put whenever peer.dat gets updated.
The best way of course to find out if an ip is in or outbound is by getpeerinfo, typical output would be :

{
"addr" : "xx.xxx.xxx.xx:18775",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1415481527,
"lastrecv" : 1415481538,
"conntime" : 1415481527,
"bytessent" : 126,
"bytesrecv" : 1467,
"blocksrequested" : 0,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,   <===== BINGO !
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 0
}

I almost forgot.
connect= also tells wallet not to accept incoming connects, listen=1 will be ignored as such.

 

[ButtCrack]

You probably want to use -addnode and not -connect, because connect implies a set exclusive peer list (i.e. you won't connect to any other peers). Or you can just remove them from the .conf after you load it, as the valid ones will now be in peers.dat

maybe that is what he intended to do... only connect to exclusive peer (that he believes on the main/correct chain)
I actually tried removing .conf after that and started the client again, and it still re-connects to certain clients on wrong fork again
I think because it always ask for more new peers from the connected peers to propagate the network
How can I tell? because when I removed .conf my upload bandwidth went crazy again...
all connected peers are all different than those exclusive list I connected earlier
and I noticed 1 of the connected peer height is way below (is at 173217) and stay like that for days as I remember
also a few connected nodes are at "startingheight" : -1 I doubt that means he just started.
What exactly height -1 means here?
in .conf file, is there a way to block certain peer? something like perma-banned until we removed it in the future

You are spot on.
Its indeed intended to force your wallet to connect only to certain/trusted peers.
When using connect= , Listen=1 will be ignored, which means no incomming connects accepted.
What clam needs would be so-called seed peers or nodes.
1 is enough, but for back up reasons of course its better to have at least 2 or more.

How to block certain peers ?
You can make use of an ip filter like peerblock.
There are others out there.
Also LMHOST file inside your windows directory can be used to do that, effectively redirecting unwanted ip to blackhole, and have a nice day !
But any decent firewall, indeed NOT windows firewall, can be use to block.
Depending on what apps I have running I use firewall and at times make use of peerblock on top of it.
Peerblock comes with block lists so you can block ip ranges of anti p2p, secret service or other crap.

Also have a look at TCPView, it shows you what is connected to your box.
It has helped me findig unwanted connects of various app including Windows.
NETstat will do the same btw.

As usual, a quick search on the net should get you further information.
Do a search of bitcoin.conf to locate the wiki, detailed info about options and how to use them.

Further questions ?
Just post and I will try to help if time permits it.

Anyway time to stop I start to make stupid typos.

[dooglus]

With incorrect or no port forwarding, incomming connects are useless.
If correct, incomming are also usefull.

The remote port you're connected to on an incoming connection is never their listening port, and so is never useful.

Without port forwarding, you won't get any incoming connections, unless you're not behind a NAT router.

[SuperClam]

Mandatory Update Announcement:


The CLAMS network has continued to come under attack and manipulation.
Thus, we are implementing another mandatory update/fork at block 203,500.
(Current block: 201,100).


The current mandatory update fixes a list of inherited issues and vulnerabilities too long to even list in such a post.

The code in the primary repository has been updated.
Those inspired to review the code can view it at this Pull Request.
These users can compile the new update as soon as they wish.

For those users utilizing pre-compiled binaries, the compiled version of the client will be released tomorrow morning.

See below for compiled executable binaries.


Some highlights of the update include:
- Entirely new UI,
- Added "weight" to coin-control UI,
- Reduced the automatic output combination threshold to 1 CLAM,
- Default RPC port changed to 30174,
- A cornucopia of upstream code improvements,
- Literally dozens and dozens of fixes, such as difficulty adjustment and timestamp spoofing,
- The ground work for some additional future features.

Special thanks to:
xploited, for all of his hard work on the codebase and making the update possible.
dooglus, working with the difficulty adjustment and other helpful consultation and contribution.
tryphe, for additional features and work with the awesome new UI.
moneromooo, for the weight addition to coincontrol

I almost certainly forgot someone, let me know and it is my pleasure to add your name to the list


UPDATED CLIENTS:
CLAMclient 1.4.3.0 Windows
CLAMclient 1.4.3.0 Linux


Some awesome content here; hope everyone enjoys the improved codebase and UI

Sorry for the rushed timeline, but we consider it extremely important that we deal with these chain shenanigans and add resilience to CLAMS in a timely manner.

We realize that back-to-back mandatory updates are an inconvenience to users.  To counter balance this, we did our best to march the ball forward for CLAMS and add in as many improvements and Easter eggs into the fork/fix as time would allow

Long Live the Great CLAM,
CLAMS Devs

[almightyruler]

RPC port seems to have changed from 15715 to 30174 (?)

edit: I guess this is to stop the conflict with Blackcoin. Just caught me unawares since my system was expecting CLAM to be on 15715.

[SuperClam]

RPC port seems to have changed from 15715 to 30174 (?)
edit: I guess this is to stop the conflict with Blackcoin. Just caught me unawares since my system was expecting CLAM to be on 15715.

Great catch, I will add it to the 'shortlist' above. 
Expect compiled binaries shortly.

[tryphe]

The CLAMS network has continued to come under attack and manipulation.

I want to try and clarify this by saying the attacks after the fork at block ~170 000 benefitted the whole network rather than just a single entity. To put it simply, the network difficulty was being pushed down. So if you were staking, you did get an informal bonus.

This fork also puts a few new mechanisms into play that will allow some planned future updates to be soft-forked in and certainly be more seamless than things are now for the average user. As painful as two hard-forks this close together have been for all of us, it is my intention for users to not have to stare at this announcement forum all day long, or pay attention at all to anything but the client to be notified of an update. I only say this because there seems be clients still stuck on forks around block 165k-170k, and that concerns me. We want to include everyone here, even if someone can only devote a few minutes of focus on our coin. People are busy, after all. But we're here to stay and want to see our community flourish.

Cheers,
tryphe

[SuperClam]

Windows Client executable posted.
CLAMclient 1.4.3.0 Windows

[Karn]

Love the new look

[SuperClam]

Love the new look

Awesome - bit rough around the edges, but it was a push to have it included in this update at all.
Those types of issues can easily be fixed without fork or hassle in the near future

[dooglus]

- Reduced the automatic output splitting threshold to 1 CLAM,

I don't think that's quite right.

It looks to me like the new code will combine outputs which are less than 1 CLAM into outputs of size 1 CLAM, but it will split anything that took less than 24 hours to stake (but only when it does eventually stake).

But maybe that's what you meant.