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

[ranlo]

During any "race condition", an often occurrence given the large number of blocks the Just-Dice wallet stakes, the Just-Dice wallet indeed ignores and often eventually orphans the competing block.  This is not malicious, it is competitive and standard behavior.

That's a good point, which I hadn't previously considered. JD is most often going to be racing against itself (two blocks both able to stake in the same 16 second slot) and when it does inevitably one of the two blocks goes to waste.

We can roughly work out the odds of the case you're talking about happening, where someone stakes a block which JD then orphans by finding a block at the same time and then staking the next block too. I'm not sure about this math, so please point out any errors I make:

Let's say JD has 75% of the network weight. For JD to orphan a block staked by the 25% of the network it doesn't control, these things must all happen:

1) someone from the 25% of the network stakes a block
2) JD stakes a block in the same 16 second slot
3) JD stakes the next block

We want to know the odds of 2) and 3) happening given that 1) has happened.

The probability of anyone staking a block in a given 16 second time period is 16/60, since we target 1 minute blocks (this is wrong, but probably not too far from the truth). So the probability of JD staking a block in that time slot is 0.75*16/60. That's 2)

The probability of JD staking the next block is 0.75. That's 3)

The probability of 2) and 3) both happening is the product of their probabilities: 0.75*0.75*16/60 = 0.15

ie. there's a 15% chance that your block will be orphaned by JD if you're staking on your own. That's obviously far too high - and more importantly it's a little higher than the 10% commission JD charges for staking! Could someone with a significant holding confirm that they're seeing something like a 15% orphan rate?

If we change the granularity to 8 second slots from 16 seconds, the orphan rate halves (the 16 in the equation is replaced by an 8 and nothing else changes). It seems that the orphan rate is inversely proportional to the granularity.

In that sentiment, I would like to start a discussion about the re-implementation of "Age" as a factor in the chance to stake.

In a system with "age", the above mentioned orphaned outputs would retain their favorable position and chance to stake.
In addition, the accrual of "age" might allow for small outputs and small holders (given the patience to wait) a chance to eventually stake.

That seems fair. The concern with using 'age' is that it removes the incentive for people to stake 24/7. If I can stake for an hour a day, use up all my saved up coin age and earn the same as if I was staking the whole day, why wouldn't I?

I guess we need to design the weight formula such that it rewards people for securing the network. I guess some kind of non-linear function would suffice: weight = value * log(age) : so doubling the age of a coin adds a fixed amount to its weight, rather than doubling its weight.

Edit: the point here being that having age be ignored as it currently is makes it hard for small holders to stake at all, having it count linearly makes it cost effective to only stake for a small percentage of the time, and so something in between seems optimal. y=log(x) is somewhere between y=0 and y=x (for x > 4 hours, at least...)

I look forward to the commentary of those with specific and insightful knowledge.

Me too. But in the mean time you'll have to make do with my ramblings.

Ah, Doog. You never cease to amaze me. You're one of the few people here that doesn't just throw out assumptions, and instead gives actual information that substantiates your views. Huge +1 with this.

Now, I think the idea of orphaning blocks should be ignored in relation to JD vs. elsewhere. The reason for this is because just like JD can orphan someone's block, someone else can orphan JD's. On the same token, the stake amount should be about equal over time. Take it like this:

Let's say JD has 75% and everyone else has 25%. We look at stakes:

JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
OTHER
JD
JD
OTHER
OTHER
JD

What you'll see here is that JD locks in a lot in a row, leading to people feeling like they're being ripped off. Then they get a couple in a row, evening it out. Staking should be, over time, about equal to your percentage. The only difference being that instead of getting, say 0.0001 CLAM a day, you get the full CLAM when it hits.

So barring JD doing something nefarious (like attacking the network), it shouldn't really matter how many blocks the site is staking. This, of course, ignores the principle that states nobody should have 51%+ regardless of their intentions (as that makes it a centralized system, whether they want to abuse the power or not).

[Vortex20000]

During any "race condition", an often occurrence given the large number of blocks the Just-Dice wallet stakes, the Just-Dice wallet indeed ignores and often eventually orphans the competing block.  This is not malicious, it is competitive and standard behavior.

That's a good point, which I hadn't previously considered. JD is most often going to be racing against itself (two blocks both able to stake in the same 16 second slot) and when it does inevitably one of the two blocks goes to waste.

We can roughly work out the odds of the case you're talking about happening, where someone stakes a block which JD then orphans by finding a block at the same time and then staking the next block too. I'm not sure about this math, so please point out any errors I make:

Let's say JD has 75% of the network weight. For JD to orphan a block staked by the 25% of the network it doesn't control, these things must all happen:

1) someone from the 25% of the network stakes a block
2) JD stakes a block in the same 16 second slot
3) JD stakes the next block

We want to know the odds of 2) and 3) happening given that 1) has happened.

The probability of anyone staking a block in a given 16 second time period is 16/60, since we target 1 minute blocks (this is wrong, but probably not too far from the truth). So the probability of JD staking a block in that time slot is 0.75*16/60. That's 2)

The probability of JD staking the next block is 0.75. That's 3)

The probability of 2) and 3) both happening is the product of their probabilities: 0.75*0.75*16/60 = 0.15

ie. there's a 15% chance that your block will be orphaned by JD if you're staking on your own. That's obviously far too high - and more importantly it's a little higher than the 10% commission JD charges for staking! Could someone with a significant holding confirm that they're seeing something like a 15% orphan rate?

If we change the granularity to 8 second slots from 16 seconds, the orphan rate halves (the 16 in the equation is replaced by an 8 and nothing else changes). It seems that the orphan rate is inversely proportional to the granularity.

In that sentiment, I would like to start a discussion about the re-implementation of "Age" as a factor in the chance to stake.

In a system with "age", the above mentioned orphaned outputs would retain their favorable position and chance to stake.
In addition, the accrual of "age" might allow for small outputs and small holders (given the patience to wait) a chance to eventually stake.

That seems fair. The concern with using 'age' is that it removes the incentive for people to stake 24/7. If I can stake for an hour a day, use up all my saved up coin age and earn the same as if I was staking the whole day, why wouldn't I?

I guess we need to design the weight formula such that it rewards people for securing the network. I guess some kind of non-linear function would suffice: weight = value * log(age) : so doubling the age of a coin adds a fixed amount to its weight, rather than doubling its weight.

Edit: the point here being that having age be ignored as it currently is makes it hard for small holders to stake at all, having it count linearly makes it cost effective to only stake for a small percentage of the time, and so something in between seems optimal. y=log(x) is somewhere between y=0 and y=x (for x > 4 hours, at least...)

I look forward to the commentary of those with specific and insightful knowledge.

Me too. But in the mean time you'll have to make do with my ramblings.

Ah, Doog. You never cease to amaze me. You're one of the few people here that doesn't just throw out assumptions, and instead gives actual information that substantiates your views. Huge +1 with this.

Now, I think the idea of orphaning blocks should be ignored in relation to JD vs. elsewhere. The reason for this is because just like JD can orphan someone's block, someone else can orphan JD's. On the same token, the stake amount should be about equal over time. Take it like this:

Let's say JD has 75% and everyone else has 25%. We look at stakes:

JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
OTHER
JD
JD
OTHER
OTHER
JD

What you'll see here is that JD locks in a lot in a row, leading to people feeling like they're being ripped off. Then they get a couple in a row, evening it out. Staking should be, over time, about equal to your percentage. The only difference being that instead of getting, say 0.0001 CLAM a day, you get the full CLAM when it hits.

So barring JD doing something nefarious (like attacking the network), it shouldn't really matter how many blocks the site is staking. This, of course, ignores the principle that states nobody should have 51%+ regardless of their intentions (as that makes it a centralized system, whether they want to abuse the power or not).

A good point.

[picolo]

for someone that dont gamble in JD have a veryyyy TINYYY chance to stake my coin now...? 

If you have X% of the actively staking CLAMs, you have an X% chance of staking the next block.

JD doesn't change that fact.

Yes, as simple as that. JD is just giving an option to people having CLAM.

[J. J. Phillips]

It's good to see people are discussing this issue. The fact that JD controls so much of the staking power is a potential problem. (I don't know any of you, but it is reassuring to read positive comments about dooglus / JD.)

I don't think putting age back in would really help. (If age is put back in, it definitely should be sublinear. There are a variety of sublinear options we could consider, including dooglus' log suggestion.)

The fact that there are still so many unclaimed clams means someone else could bring JD under 50% without people withdrawing clams from JD.

The best solution IMO is for someone else to do the 2 most important things JD has done: (1) make it very easy for people to claim their unclaimed clams and (2) provide a staking pool.

(1) The JD dig feature seems to be more popular than the import wallet feature. There might be an even easier/more popular way to do this. People are afraid of giving up any of their private keys. Technically they only need to use the private key to sign a tx to send the buried clams to a new address. Maybe someone could find a way for people to easily sign such tx's (on the client side) in exchange for something. They should be able to do this without needing to download the clam client and the first 10000 blocks of the block chain.

(2) A staking pool would not require having a website at all. It could all be done on the blockchain in a provably fair way. I thought about trying to set something like this up myself, but none of you know me. I know I'm trustworthy and won't run away with your clams, but realistically you don't. Plus I wouldn't want to spend more than 1 or 2 hours a week on it. There's probably someone in the clams community trusted enough to run such a pool, or a clever "trustless" way to do it.

[SuperClam]

It's good to see people are discussing this issue. The fact that JD controls so much of the staking power is a potential problem. (I don't know any of you, but it is reassuring to read positive comments about dooglus / JD.)
I don't think putting age back in would really help. (If age is put back in, it definitely should be sublinear. There are a variety of sublinear options we could consider, including dooglus' log suggestion.)
The fact that there are still so many unclaimed clams means someone else could bring JD under 50% without people withdrawing clams from JD.
The best solution IMO is for someone else to do the 2 most important things JD has done: (1) make it very easy for people to claim their unclaimed clams and (2) provide a staking pool.
(1) The JD dig feature seems to be more popular than the import wallet feature. There might be an even easier/more popular way to do this. People are afraid of giving up any of their private keys. Technically they only need to use the private key to sign a tx to send the buried clams to a new address. Maybe someone could find a way for people to easily sign such tx's (on the client side) in exchange for something. They should be able to do this without needing to download the clam client and the first 10000 blocks of the block chain.
(2) A staking pool would not require having a website at all. It could all be done on the blockchain in a provably fair way. I thought about trying to set something like this up myself, but none of you know me. I know I'm trustworthy and won't run away with your clams, but realistically you don't. Plus I wouldn't want to spend more than 1 or 2 hours a week on it. There's probably someone in the clams community trusted enough to run such a pool, or a clever "trustless" way to do it.

Thank you for your input!


I believe your reasoning is somewhat circular, however.

The concern at hand is the concentration and centralization of the CLAM network.  
Your suggested solution appears to be that there should be an alternative which does not require users to download the client.


There are multiple reasons it is desirable that users download the client.  

First, a user can not very well stake, and thus decentralize the network, without the client.  

Second, the vast majority of users do not understand how the protocol works - and thus, any individual key solution will almost certainly result in incomplete claims.  Even use of the command 'listunspent' will not produce the required private keys, as the pertinent keys may very well not contain an unspent output now; though they did at the time of the distribution snapshot.  The fact is that a miniscule portion of the users I have spoken with understand that "change" addresses even exist, let alone the process a client goes through to produce the tree of outputs one finds on the chain.

Third, your solution appears to suggest that third-party services, in which the private key is transferred to a web-server over the wire through a browser into an opaque code system is preferable, from a security stand-point, to importing directly into the client.  Even in the case of Just-Dice, it is impossible to argue from a security stand-point, given that the same individual you trust, dooglus, has thoroughly reviewed and contributed to the code of the client.  Therefore, a great deal of that "trust" must exist in both methods of claiming CLAMS.  The difference being that claiming in the client does not involve the private keys ever leaving your personal system.  Of course, the entire issue of security is nearly moot, considering that the recommended claim process, for Just-Dice OR the client, both involve emptying the private key before claiming regardless.  Empty keys have no more value than any random string of characters.

Fourth, the process of entering the console and utilizing commands to sally-forth individual private keys, which you hope happen to have had control of the outputs on May 12th, can hardly be considered "easier" (though it could indeed be faster, considering the requirement to sync - though individually importing keys is likely NOT faster when more than a handful of keys are concerned) than the three clicks required to click "Import Wallet".


Concerning age:

The re-implementation of age would reduce the occurrence of orphans caused by "race conditions".  For that reason alone, it is likely a sensible option.  

The only argument I have heard against the re-implementation of age concerns the incentive structure and desire to have clients staking continuously for network security.  

CLAMS already has the most sensible incentive structure is this regard, even if EXPONENTIAL age was implemented.

The fact is, we are the only proof-of-stake crypto with a reward structure that doesn't allow users to accrue reward "interest" via accruing age.  That alone is incentive to not "store" age.  Time not spent hashing, is time not spent rolling hashes for nBits.  Making CLAMS easily the crypto with the most well-aligned incentive structure regardless of age.

The only way it would make sense to "accrue" age would be if a user had a single output, which had just staked, and therefore they were not even close to solving a block; and thus decided to forgo the minimal chance of solving a block in favor of not staking.  However, even with a handful of staggered outputs, not staking the client consistently would result in drastically reduced chance to stake, and therefore drastically reduced reward, as surely at least one of the outputs at any given time is near enough to accruing enough age to have at least some chance to stake.

Is age a silver bullet?  
No, absolutely not.  It doesn't solve the crux of the problem at all.

Would competition in the realm of stake-pooling (something entirely un-heard of before CLAMS) be beneficial?
Yes.

However, arguing that it makes any logical sense at all for the average user to claim via any method other than the client simply doesn't hold weight in my opinion.  

The only reasonable argument, in that regard, is for users who KNOW they have all of their keys, have a reasonably small number of keys, and desire the additional speed of not having to sync the client.

[BayAreaCoins]

1. There is no need to trust digging at JD because the wallet should be empty and retired prior to digging.

2.  People trust digging on JD way more than some strange client that magically shifts through your wallets for coins or whatever else.  CLAM CLIENT sketchs me out personally and many many others. (I do think it is safe though, but honestly I personally do not have it downloaded and probably will not download it.)

3.  I don't see centralization as a problem atm.  JD puts all the work out, provides all the services, has the best chat and therefore gets its fair share of the network... honestly I feel like JD should have 80%-95% of the coins right now.

In 6mo prior to JD CLAM got on Poloniex.... In 2 weeks after JD opened this door we have seen huge growth both price wise as well as adoption wise.  

I think it would be wise not to do anything that might appear to be taking away from JD holders in order to be "more fair" to other people. My best advice who don't like the fact that JD has >51% of the network stake would be to make CLAM services and encourage services that you trust to accept clam!

Hell... maybe even lobby your local mining pool to start a CLAM pool!  Very little over head in them at least trying!  Do not be scared to start your own shit for fear that people won't trust you... everyone had to have their first trade somewhere!  I really really expect that the CLAM holders will at least give you a shot in trust, so fucking take the risk!

[cryyptc]

you call yourself a developer yet you don't even know that freenode blocks TOR?
fekkin noob!!!! ====> i got you guys listed on cryptsy now you never pay me my 200 clams.
thats what this is all about ,  you really that greedy?
:\
~ take a look at yourself!!!!

*You
*F*cking
*I
*and you
*paid
*That's
*are you
*Take
Among many.


This has nothing to do with greed.

It has to do with:

• Your inability to speak truthfully,
• Having your attempts at begging refused, and
• Having your attempts at extortion refused.

If you:

• Learn to speak truthfully,
• Stop begging, and
• Offer something of value;

Then, perhaps, those with self-respect might toss you some CLAMS.


Until that time, you have absolutely nothing to offer this community.
Move along, Owsley


P.S.  If you are really nice, and apologize for being a bad troll, I might even let you back into the IRC channel

/\gfys scammers; see how far you get with that attitude i want my 200 clams as promised

[cryyptc]

1. There is no need to trust digging at JD because the wallet should be empty and retired prior to digging.

2.  People trust digging on JD way more than some strange client that magically shifts through your wallets for coins or whatever else.  CLAM CLIENT sketchs me out personally and many many others. (I do think it is safe though, but honestly I personally do not have it downloaded and probably will not download it.)

3.  I don't see centralization as a problem atm.  JD puts all the work out, provides all the services, has the best chat and therefore gets its fair share of the network... honestly I feel like JD should have 80%-95% of the coins right now.

In 6mo prior to JD CLAM got on Poloniex.... In 2 weeks after JD opened this door we have seen huge growth both price wise as well as adoption wise.  

I think it would be wise not to do anything that might appear to be taking away from JD holders in order to be "more fair" to other people. My best advice who don't like the fact that JD has >51% of the network stake would be to make CLAM services and encourage services that you trust to accept clam!

Hell... maybe even lobby your local mining pool to start a CLAM pool!  Very little over head in them at least trying!  Do not be scared to start your own shit for fear that people won't trust you... everyone had to have their first trade somewhere!  I really really expect that the CLAM holders will at least give you a shot in trust, so fucking take the risk!

fyi no one trusts you ! :\  ....just sayin'.

*everyone knows what you are trying to do! = looks like you are trying to distribute a bitcoin wallet stealer? lmfao

[cryyptc]

^^^^
tl;dr



====> let me make this simple : i got you listed on cryptsy = where is my 200 clams


~ and maybe you can connect with some extensions, but no! >> freenode irc blocks most TOR exit nodes so stfu and do your own homework.

fyi: warning I know insiders at okcoin and most all other exchanges so if this is how you do business~ the bitcoin community wants nothing to do with your fraud.


:\


/\you better stop and think before you keep spouting this falsehoods

Go away Owsley!

You ain't getting shit bitch (ever!)

no worries we will just hardfork CLAMS ... sit back and enjoy the ride lmao

[cryyptc]

i'm not going to get you guys added to any more exchanges at this rate.

You didn't get CLAM listed on Cryptsy. It happened, but you didn't cause it to happen. You always seem to struggle with causality.

100 clams or don't ask me for shit!    :\     ~am i being greedy?

Nobody is asking you for anything, and yes you're being greedy. Now go away please.

just-dice *poof!*



/\loser!!!

[cryyptc]

...>>>> The problem as I see it is that JD is the only CLAM service out there. <<<<....

yes the original idea of thinking you were getting away with something by creating your own token will not help you. You mustregister your gambling site as a money transmitter & gambling commission or you going to end up in court(in my honest opinion)

>> same ole story here it appears Just-dice will be going offline soon imho! ~good LUCK!!!! bwaahahaha

[ymod123]

is the price down because of the staking issue?

[almightyruler]

2.  People trust digging on JD way more than some strange client that magically shifts through your wallets for coins or whatever else.  CLAM CLIENT sketchs me out personally and many many others. (I do think it is safe though, but honestly I personally do not have it downloaded and probably will not download it.)

See above (and in several previous posts) the warnings about change addresses. If you use JD solely for digging it's possible you may not get access to all of the CLAM you're entitled to.

It's odd that you would trust a third party website over a client that has source available, which you can even compile yourself, and that additionally, by trusting this third party website, you're opening the entire network up to a potential 51% attack.

[SuperClam]

1. There is no need to trust digging at JD because the wallet should be empty and retired prior to digging.

True.
Just as there is no need to trust digging with the client because the wallet should be empty and retired prior to digging.

2.  People trust digging on JD way more than some strange client that magically shifts through your wallets for coins or whatever else.

The import process is no more "magic" than electricity.  
It may appear to be so to those who have never seen it and do not understand it - but that does not make it so.

In fact, in order to get the CLAMS for you, JD has to create and broadcast a transaction with your key.
It creates and broadcasts this transaction with the exact same "strange client" you seem to dislike.
There is no difference.

Further, coins do not exist "in" a wallet.  
They exist as a tree of sign-able outputs on the chain.
There is no "sifting" as you put it.

CLAM CLIENT sketches me out personally and many many others.
(I do think it is safe though, but honestly I personally do not have it downloaded and probably will not download it.)

I hope this is not a purposely ignorant argument.

You trust dooglus;
he has earned that trust with us as well.

dooglus has repository access to the CLAM client code base as a full core developer.
dooglus has contributed multiple pull requests to the CLAM client code base.
If there was an emergency, dooglus could unilaterally repair the client code with no other individual present or consulted.

You can not reasonably argue both that the client is magical and sketchy and that dooglus is trustworthy.

Pick one.

3.  I don't see centralization as a problem atm.  JD puts all the work out, provides all the services, has the best chat and therefore gets its fair share of the network... honestly I feel like JD should have 80%-95% of the coins right now. In 6mo prior to JD CLAM got on Poloniex.... In 2 weeks after JD opened this door we have seen huge growth both price wise as well as adoption wise.  

No one dislikes Just-Dice.  
Just-Dice provides a solid trustworthy service.  
Just-Dice adds value and utility to CLAMS.

I have not heard any argument otherwise.

However, decentralization is fundamental to this project - and should be fundamental to every block chain implementation.

The individuals that maintain this project (dooglus can speak for himself, though I expect he agrees) involved in this project value decentralization and the attribute of trust-less-ness.

If you want a centralized system, go buy XRP by Ripple Labs.

Those who "put all the work out", as you so eloquently put it, see decentralization as a core aspect of block chain technology and the revolution that is the trust-less ledger.

And by "all the work" I include the dozens and dozens of developers over dozens and dozens of branches that have contributed selflessly over years and years.

If you don't agree with that, then you have stumbled into the wrong forum, I am afraid.


That said, I don't think anyone has suggested that this issue need be solved over-night.  
Nor have I seen anyone suggest that there should be an effort to "steal" anyone's "fair share".

I think it would be wise not to do anything that might appear to be taking away from JD holders in order to be "more fair" to other people. My best advice who don't like the fact that JD has >51% of the network stake would be to make CLAM services and encourage services that you trust to accept clam!

I think it would be wise not to veil your implied threats.
Judging by your insinuations of "fair share", "more fair", etc. you appear to fore-see some "phantom" conspiracy.

There is no, nor has there ever been any, intention of "getting you" or Just-Dice.
Nor do we intend to turn a blind-eye to other core values, such as fairness, in the pursuit of working through the 51% issue.

This problem may indeed simply work itself out as more CLAMS are claimed and more services offered.
Thus, your recommendation to encourage services to accept CLAMS is a good idea.

It is important, however, to note that this has nothing to do with what we "don't like".
It is in everyone's interest that CLAMS finds a way to become more stake decentralized; including your own.
Even if you do not realize it.

[xploited]

1. There is no need to trust digging at JD because the wallet should be empty and retired prior to digging.

2.  People trust digging on JD way more than some strange client that magically shifts through your wallets for coins or whatever else.  CLAM CLIENT sketchs me out personally and many many others. (I do think it is safe though, but honestly I personally do not have it downloaded and probably will not download it.)

3.  I don't see centralization as a problem atm.  JD puts all the work out, provides all the services, has the best chat and therefore gets its fair share of the network... honestly I feel like JD should have 80%-95% of the coins right now.

In 6mo prior to JD CLAM got on Poloniex.... In 2 weeks after JD opened this door we have seen huge growth both price wise as well as adoption wise.  

I think it would be wise not to do anything that might appear to be taking away from JD holders in order to be "more fair" to other people. My best advice who don't like the fact that JD has >51% of the network stake would be to make CLAM services and encourage services that you trust to accept clam!

Hell... maybe even lobby your local mining pool to start a CLAM pool!  Very little over head in them at least trying!  Do not be scared to start your own shit for fear that people won't trust you... everyone had to have their first trade somewhere!  I really really expect that the CLAM holders will at least give you a shot in trust, so fucking take the risk!

I'm going to try to be nice, but your making it difficult.

I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything you said.  The client is significantly safer then a website you send your private keys to. dooglus himself trusted it and continues to use it. It is after all where those 200k+ clams are being held. In all the hundreds of wallets that been imported by now there's never been one case of anything nefarious and there never will be.  

You say you think its safe but it sketches you out?  how can you have it both ways.. The fact you haven't even downloaded the client shows me you have no care at all about clams, its just a game to you and you make your decisions on anything but fact or logic.

The price is certainly one aspect of any coin, but for the 6 months before the increase in adoption things were doing just fine and development continued along. For some there's more concern then just price, but where not all just day traders like yourself, some of us care and believe in the technology and are trying to improve it in some way. Its not very valuable if all the adopters are not actually interested in clams but just want to make a quick buck. Adoption is great but the wrong type of adoption is not.  

If all the investors at JD want to devest and drop all the coins in the market, so be it, I welcome that. At least the network would almost certainly be secure which it currently isn't.

Crypto currency should not be based on trust. The fact you think its all right speaks volume to your character and the reasons you do what you do. It does not matter how trustworthy the individual is in the slightest.  

Me and dooglus discussed the situation just last night and came to the conclusion its too early to decided if JD having the coins and the hold over the network that comes with it is temporary or something that will get worse over time. If another service pops up and the problem resolves its self that would be wonderful but I would much rather have people dump coins into users who care about clams and will help secure the network themselfs at any price then have the JD stack become larger and larger making the issue worse.

There is no magic in anything we do with your wallet. Its quite simple what we've done. Its all encapsulated in a single function and is almost a complete direct copy of the standard LoadWallet function but we ignore all other data other private keys where thats the only important information.

All the times you've been on irc and talking to us I would have been more then happy to exactly explain what we did, why did you never ask?

[BayAreaCoins]

Crypto currency should not be based on trust.

Absolutely laughable.

Trust is everything.  Without trust there would be no Bitcoin.

People TRUST Coinbase to send their cash, people TRUST Bitstamp to send their cash, people TRUSTED SR to send their whatever, even with escrow... if there isn't any mutual trust with the person involved with the deal then the deal probably won't happen.

People TRUST banks, stocks and other investments more than they TRUST Bitcoin right now.  When this changes then we will see massive values spill into BTC.

For example with CLAM and trust.  

People TRUST JD and this brings value to the CLAM network as a whole.

If another service pops up and the problem resolves its self that would be wonderful but I would much rather have people dump coins into users who care about clams and will help secure the network themselfs at any price then have the JD stack become larger and larger making the issue worse.

If... lol k xploited.

If you want a centralized system, go buy XRP by Ripple Labs.

lol again.  Thanks for the free advice, but I'll stick with the "your best trade is your own trade" mindset  

Encouraging people to make CLAM better, safer and more easy to obtain without trusting even the wallet sniffing client would be more productive than encouraging people to buy Ripple.

I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything you said.  The client is significantly safer then a website you send your private keys to.

The client is not "significantly" safer than Just-dice because everyone who is claiming via JD is doing it with empty keys.  There is no risk at all doing it via JD and the user has total control of the address put into the system... downloading the client you click a button and it goes through your shit for you... sorry if it upsets you that I think this is Sketchy and I'm sure it is frustrating for you as a coder, but for me as a person who can't code or read code it seems like a risk.  

That post was all feedback that I am getting from people via Forums, troll box and IRL.  Sorry it isn't what you two wanted to hear.

I want to see CLAM continue to grow and become decentralized naturally.

It is honestly hilarious that you think it is strange that normal people aren't rushing to download a thing that goes through all of their computers crypto wallets by a person who is named Xploited.

but where not all just day traders like yourself,

Lol you're telling me something about me that I don't know about me because last I checked I got all my shit locked away staking. Far more profitable pwning blocks than day trading a uptrending market

[Vortex20000]

Crypto currency should not be based on trust.

Absolutely laughable.

Trust is everything.  Without trust there would be no Bitcoin.

People TRUST Coinbase to send their cash, people TRUST Bitstamp to send their cash, people TRUSTED SR to send their whatever, even with escrow... if there isn't any mutual trust with the person involved with the deal then the deal probably won't happen.

People TRUST banks, stocks and other investments more than they TRUST Bitcoin right now.  When this changes then we will see massive values spill into BTC.

For example with CLAM and trust.  

People TRUST JD and this brings value to the CLAM network as a whole.

If another service pops up and the problem resolves its self that would be wonderful but I would much rather have people dump coins into users who care about clams and will help secure the network themselfs at any price then have the JD stack become larger and larger making the issue worse.

If... lol k xploited.

If you want a centralized system, go buy XRP by Ripple Labs.

lol again.  Thanks for the free advice, but I'll stick with the "your best trade is your own trade" mindset  

Encouraging people to make CLAM better, safer and more easy to obtain without trusting even the wallet sniffing client would be more productive than encouraging people to buy Ripple.

I disagree wholeheartedly with just about everything you said.  The client is significantly safer then a website you send your private keys to.

The client is not "significantly" safer than Just-dice because everyone who is claiming via JD is doing it with empty keys.  There is no risk at all doing it via JD and the user has total control of the address put into the system... downloading the client you click a button and it goes through your shit for you... sorry if it upsets you that I think this is Sketchy and I'm sure it is frustrating for you as a coder, but for me as a person who can't code or read code it seems like a risk.  

That post was all feedback that I am getting from people via Forums, troll box and IRL.  Sorry it isn't what you two wanted to hear.

I want to see CLAM continue to grow and become decentralized naturally.

It is honestly hilarious that you think it is strange that normal people aren't rushing to download a thing that goes through all of their computers crypto wallets by a person who is named Xploited.

but where not all just day traders like yourself,

Lol you're telling me something about me that I don't know about me because last I checked I got all my shit locked away staking. Far more profitable pwning blocks than day trading a uptrending market

All you do is transfer all the money out of your Bitcoin client to a temporary address on a different device, scan the wallet, delete wallet.dat, and then create a new wallet in the client and send the money back to yourself. I don't see how this is any riskier than using JD, other than the fact that disregarding the fact I trust xploited and the other coders, they might install malware on my computer. My keys are no biggie, xD.

[xploited]

Absolutely laughable.

Trust is everything.  Without trust there would be no Bitcoin.

People TRUST Coinbase to send their cash, people TRUST Bitstamp to send their cash, people TRUSTED SR to send their whatever, even with escrow... if there isn't any mutual trust with the person involved with the deal then the deal probably won't happen.

Were talking about the security of a block chain here, not if I trust a person or entity to give me a service that I paid for. There not the same thing. The entire principle behind bitcoin and the reason I see it as a novel idea is that I don't have to trust a human being to do the right thing. Not only is the code available for me to look though if I'm so inclined but the consensus mechanism and protocol built around consensus provide a verifiable way to transfer a store of value from one person to another without any human trust involved.

Other then in certain cases, and for PoS, staking more then 51% in a single place breaks the consensus mechanism and degrades us back into trusting a human to do the right thing.    

People TRUST JD and this brings value to the CLAM network as a whole.

You have me here. People do trust JD and it does bring value to the clam network as a whole, I would never argue that. Currently at the same time however its breaking the key part of the system that required no human trust to begin with.

If another service pops up and the problem resolves its self that would be wonderful but I would much rather have people dump coins into users who care about clams and will help secure the network themselfs at any price then have the JD stack become larger and larger making the issue worse.

If... lol k xploited.

My english is often poor so let me clarify. I have no doubt other services will pop up. I do have a small  amount of doubt that the other services will help the situation. I can't predict the future and neither can you. When other services start to exist the situation will be much more clear and I truly hope no interaction by anyone is required at all and the problem fixes itself.

This is something were going to have to wait to see how it unfolds.  

The client is not "significantly" safer than Just-dice because everyone who is claiming via JD is doing it with empty keys.  There is no risk at all doing it via JD and the user has total control of the address put into the system... downloading the client you click a button and it goes through your shit for you... sorry if it upsets you that I think this is Sketchy and I'm sure it is frustrating for you as a coder, but for me as a person who can't code or read code it seems like a risk.  

That post was all feedback that I am getting from people via Forums, troll box and IRL.  Sorry it isn't what you two wanted to hear.

This will be technical so you might not get it but I'll explain it anyways.  

First, significantly might be overplaying it but I still fully believe it is safer and could easily be made much more verifiable safe by the way I create the binarys. Let me explain why.  

The way I envisioned it working since launch date requires much less trust. You can't see dooglus's code on JD. He himself states he could be keeping the keys, or whatever with them so your left trusting a single person. A incredible trustworth person yes, but its still trusting a single point of failure.

So your not a coder you say, how can you possible trust the client!  well. let me explain to you the process I use to build the client.

I use gitian builder, which is a deterministic method to build it.  What that means is it can be built identically, the same way every time by more then just me using the code directly from the git repo. I provide my signature and the checksums of the client, lets say dooglus does the same and other trusted members of the community who can read and understand the code who trust the code is safe build it the same, sign it and all provide identical checksums.

This ensures the binary your downloading has been built directly from the code on the github repo and that multiple people verified the code in github was safe. This has ALWAYS been my end goal but it was not tell now there were people involved other then myself who were capable of compiling using gitian builder.

The new version of the client 1.4.3.2 with the autotools build system will include at the very least my gpg signature and at least one other. I would love to get dooglus to do it as well and the process will be much simplified in the new source code.

 because everyone who is claiming via JD is doing it with empty keys ....  and the user has total control of the address put into the system

I would also like to point out, since the very beginning we have constantly told people to move their funds into new wallets before importing. Your logic here is lost on me entirely. How is the client any less safe if this is done then if its done at JD?  Also, the user does not have total control of the addresses on the JD system. JD has total contol as the moment you dig the funds are swept into a JD wallet. dooglus has even posted the code that does that part of the process when you dig.

If JD were to go offline you would lose access, unlike your client which you actually will never lose access to baring your own person computer failure. Everything remains in your control in the client locally.  

It is honestly hilarious that you think it is strange that normal people aren't rushing to download a thing that goes through all of their computers crypto wallets by a person who is named Xploited.

My name is actually Scott, xploited being a nicname I picked up when I was younger and interested in operational security. I'm pretty sure no sane parent would name there child xploited.  I should totally just change my nic to MostTrustedPersonInTheWorld and then the issue who be completely moot!

If you had bothered to ask me my name I would have glady given it to you, its not like i'm hiding.  

[ranlo]

The best solution IMO is for someone else to do the 2 most important things JD has done: (1) make it very easy for people to claim their unclaimed clams and (2) provide a staking pool.

Let's get real for a minute here. Exchanges take fees on each coin traded. This is where they make their money. Exchanges are then taking money from stake as well. This is where the staking should really be shared. We shouldn't have them just racking in whoknowshowmuch money on staking when they're already racking it in from fees. I think this needs to be the first priority: one that shares its stake with users. On every coin they support that uses PoS.

[BayAreaCoins]

The best solution IMO is for someone else to do the 2 most important things JD has done: (1) make it very easy for people to claim their unclaimed clams and (2) provide a staking pool.

Let's get real for a minute here. Exchanges take fees on each coin traded. This is where they make their money. Exchanges are then taking money from stake as well. This is where the staking should really be shared. We shouldn't have them just racking in whoknowshowmuch money on staking when they're already racking it in from fees. I think this needs to be the first priority: one that shares its stake with users. On every coin they support that uses PoS.

It would be nice to have a exchange that gave the users staked amount back to them.

I was speaking with the https://yacuna.com/ guys and I believe they are working on something! It is easier said than done I believe.

At the same time I support exchanges keeping the fees and the coins the earn off staking.  This is a great income for a exchange that is looking to expand and gives them a lot of incentive to list the coin.

Bottom line is they can run their company however they want and people looking to use a exchange are also free to choose who they want!

I'm sure in a month we will have exchanges of all different flavors.