Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 205. (Read 1151369 times)

the hike to prepare to merge

Right. I mean we can't know the weights, we can only know the results.

It's also kind of tricky to subtract off the JD blocks, because it's not trivial to identify the JD blocks. Some deposits stake before they are moved to an xJDCLAMZ address. Perhaps I should tag each JD vote with an identifying mark to make this easier.

That is entirely missing the point. JD can have a large staking wallet backing a relatively smaller amount of activity because it has a large amount of capital. People who aren't as well-endowed with their CLAM will have a much smaller ratio between backing stake and active coins. In other words, this will further concentrate ownership, and discourage activity.

Coins that are backing an order on the book can't be lent out. So no, people providing liquidity to the market don't get paid interest, nor stake (as long as Poloniex rules remain unchanged).

Providing liquidity is, in general, an activity that generates return on investment and has to compete with other such activities. So if the staking rate goes up, all else being equal the rate of return on liquidity will go up as well (i.e. trading more expensive for takers).

EDIT: Typo can/can't

Sure we can. We can count up all the votes from the blockchain and then substract what JD reports. That tells us exactly what the rest (non-JD) of the blockchain is voting.

The only way this is less accurate than what JD is reporting is the natural variance of who gets to stake a block. Over a week this should be reasonably close to overall voting preferences.

I PM'ed you yesterday but didn't get any reply. Please don't tell me you're just trying to drop the price and have nothing to back it up.


Note that while JD has 74% of the CLAMs which have ever moved, some of the remaining 26% is sitting idle. Lost, in cold storage, on an exchange that doesn't stake, etc. There's over 100k at Poloniex which never stakes. So JD's share of the staking weight is higher than 74%.

If you scroll to the end of https://just-dice.com/misc/wagered.txt you'll see that JD stakes around 1200 CLAMs per day. The network as a whole tries to stake one CLAM per minute, or 1440 per day. 1200 is 83.33% of 1440, which suggests that JD has around 83.33% of the staking weight.

As for knowing the voting weights of the other ~17%, we can't, unless they tell us. All we can do is count up the votes on the blockchain and see what is actually being voted for.

I didn't hear about anyone actually counting votes yet, but it will need to be done sooner or later.


This morning I registered a new petition on the blockchain (see http://txti.es/clamour for a list):

    petition ID 0000cb61 -- "I am aware of clamours but I don't like any registered proposal yet"

If you wish to register the fact that you are deliberately abstaining, you can use that petition ID to make it clear that you are actively not supporting any petition. It begins with a bunch of zeroes, suggestive of supporting "nothing".



That proposal was created by Deb. She reads this thread religiously, but never posts in it.

But the idea is older:

Trent Russell proposed it here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13101661

I replied like this:


then smooth responded like this:


and that's about all the discussion of it I saw.


The point is that if you wait a year before digging up your CLAMs, you lose out on staking them for that year.

Increasing the staking reward increases the incentive to dig your CLAMs as soon as possible, which removes the uncertainty caused by the undug CLAMs hanging over us.

Economically, increasing the staking reward is very similar to decreasing the digging reward, but has the benefit that:

  a) it is easier to implement

and

  b) it doesn't involve removing coins that we already told people they "may already own"


There's no cost to submitting a proposal. But crappy ones hopefully won't get any attention or support.


People should manage their wallets such that transacting with a portion of their coins doesn't affect the rest of their coins. The Just-Dice hot wallet transacts constantly, and yet is very able to continue staking at all times.


This is probably true, but I don't see it as a bad thing for CLAMs to move away from venues which choose not to participate in staking.

Perhaps it would encourage Poloniex to really use CLAM as it was intended to be used and enable staking to help secure the coin and reduce the evil monopoly (TM) of that one dice site.


They do, and that would presumably continue to be the case even if the staking reward increased. The lending market would have to adapt to keep up with the staking rate.

People get intrest, even higher then stake=P

The Poloniex market is certainly much more liquid than it has been in the past; though, I cry a bit when I think of all the CLAM stakes missed by those who have their CLAM in the Poloniex books

Increasing the stake reward to 10 clams/minute would probably have an averse affect on available clam supply at the market, which is pretty healthy right now. I expect many clams would be pulled off Poloniex (and make other lower volume markets even thinner) because they're not staking there. Right now it seems like not staking is acceptable, but if stake supply went up 10 times, holders wouldn't want to get diluted quickly.

An interesting proposal, though I think it would be a mistake to implement it.

The proportion of un-'dug' CLAM to 'dug' CLAM could be altered without drastically changing the projected money supply.

I intend to write and issue a petition for the per-byte-per-block change sometime later this week, if I can hammer out the details appropriately.
A side-effect of this change would likely satisfy the above proportion change, over time, without changing the total money supply.

Of course, users/stakeholders will have to judge things for themselves.

webchris is right. The one-time (?) 10x increase makes staking now much more valuable than staking later, because the amount of the stake reward is fixed and is divided among all staking coins. So as the money supply (and presumably the number of coins being staked) rapidly increases at about 30% per month under this proposal, the rate of return from staking decreases accordingly.

At 10x the rate we would have >5 million coins being staked per year and the original 15 million free CLAMs will decrease in value very quickly (as will any CLAMs that are not being staked).

EDIT: Previously miscalculated the 10x rate as 50 million coins per year; it is only 5 million.

It is true that stakers will retain (and even increase as I will explain here) their share of the coin supply. People who actively transact will see their share decline. Currently the stake rate is about 3% per month. If that is suddenly increased by 10x, it will be 30% per month. Someone whose coins aren't staking for just 24 hours out of a month will lose 1% value (coins are ineligible to stake for 4 hours after moving and can't be moved for 8 hours after staking). This will likely lead to increase concentration of ownership over time.

The price decline in the markets will be visible and not helpful. It will appear the coin is doing poorly even though, all else being equal, the market cap would not be affected.

The increase will increase the incentive to stake and secure the network. Currently only about 2/3 of the dug coins are staking.

All three of these effects are temporary as the fixed-reward system converges toward a 0% staking inflation rate regardless of the starting rate. The money supply would have to increase by 10x before the higher reward converges to the same percentage rate as the lower, which will take some time. 3%/month is already a pretty high rate for all three effects IMO.

Not sure how this would work.. even though the supply is bigger any future whale diggers would be able to stake 10x as many coins 

Is there a cost associated with submitting a proposal? Maybe that will dissuade some of the half-baked ideas that will inevitably be proposed

Well I didn't make the petition, but it would dilute the supply which would benefit current owners of the coin and hurt future diggers. If you have 10k clams today, you will be staking 10x more clams. If you have 10k undug clams that you will discover and dig up next year, then your supply has not rising at all while the current owners now have more, meaning your value of clams should be less comparably.

This could have the effect of lowering the price of clams as there would be more supply, however stakeholders would have more clam so that should offset any losses in price. Also, the loss in value to future diggers would help offset some of the price/supply issues caused by the increased staking.

Hi. Would someone explain me why was proposed to change the staking reward from 1 Clam t o10 Clam?
Give me the good and bads.
Thanx.

Gotta love trolls. Only 10 BTC would move it past that price.

Thank you for explanation.  What I've got - cheating with voting almost useless as the weight of  CLAMspeech "voice" depends on  currently staking amount - isn't it?

Also thanks for improving clarity of clamour_weights page.
But what is still unclear at least for me:
as I understand these %% represents only Just-Dice's bankroll, .
So if
then
means
"10.31 * 0.7384 = 7.61% support within all network"  - right?
And how can we know voting weights of 26.16% rest staking CLAMs which are outside of JD?

---

Further conversation about your personal trading situation is off-topic.


+1

---

"Good Bye fair world" received loud and clear.
Thank you.

Further conversation about your personal trading situation is off-topic.

Smackdown of the day goes to Northstar! haha