Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 210. (Read 1151372 times)

The bolded portion is very incorrect relative to the active supply. The basic staking rate of 1/min is a little over 525600 per year. The active supply is 1469483, meaning the current active supply inflation rate is 35.7%. Bitcoin's active supply is 14907525, roughly 10x larger. The BTC emission rate is 2.5/min, so 2.5x larger. Thus the active supply inflation in CLAMs is 4x higher than BTC.

At 35.7%, the staking inflation is currently a very significant rate of value erosion for undug coins, and that doesn't even factor in ongoing digging.

Well said SuperClam.

I'm certainly not opposed to DoS and bloat protection either, on their fundamental merits. I will scrutinize these proposals carefully in light of the timing however. My skepticism on this matter is significant; the fundamental cost of carrying along the untouched and undug outputs is not at all high. The cost of other bloat and DoS attacks may be much higher.

You are correct of course. I meant to convey that digs of a given size will be smaller and smaller relative to active supply, but it is possible there will be digs that are so much larger in size that the are still larger relative to active supply than this previous one. I doubt it though, and it literally can't happen very many times just numerically. We are at almost 10% of the original supply already, meaning a dig of 60% of the active supply would now have to be almost 6% of the original supply, and that number increases every day (and certainly with every mid to large dig).

It also is a certainty that there are many coins in the original supply that literally don't exist because their now-empty private keys were not kept (or in some cases the keys were lost even though the outputs are not empty). That number also likely increases every day, though its magnitude is unknowable.

Its not possible to know future diggs will be smaller relative to the active supply unless someone knows something the rest of us do not.

The potential for larger undug wallets has always been very clear to me without charts, but I do appreciate the PAC-MAN look! Its still a very high risk coin to purchase with all the undug wallets and a price 90% less would be more reasonable considering the total undug supply.

This. https://youtu.be/6Pnqp5n9pgE
Who can draw arrows and labels: "Doog", "Whale yellow side digger" and "CLAM community" in that short 71sec. video?

I personally agree with most of what you've said; but I think you are over-estimating a bit.

I think it is likely that there are large diggers in the future, possibly even this large or larger.
I believe most services, properly designed, will have swept their wallets and not have such a large amount of addresses.
A service small enough that it can afford to not sweep their wallets is likewise less of a threat.

I admittedly base this on unconfirmed data; specifically, reports that Poloniex and certain other services have already claimed (deposit addresses were claimed).
I think these edge cases are larger concern than primary services.
They are also probably less likely to exist.
I would also argue that a large amount of keys are un-claimable.

I think that the impact of these future diggers is likely to be smaller than this digger.
Though, a digger even half this size at the moment would probably still be widely felt in the markets.

smooth is correct in his previous argument:
As the moneysupply increases via staking and other more conventional "digs", the impact of these larger diggers necessarily goes down. 
They are simply a smaller percentage increase in a larger market.

The downside of this argument is that our inflation isn't amazingly high.
It is in fact currently lower than BTC.
Meaning that the process of walking along this path of minting the moneysupply, as it relates to damping down the effects of 'diggers', is a slow walk.

All-in-all, this whole situation is muddled mess.
I believe that the 'digging' feature of CLAM is an essential part of what makes CLAM... well, CLAM.

I think this is a situation where intent matters.
I would likely not support a proposal that changed 'digs' simply for the sake of doing so.
That said, if a strong majority supported a change, and I verified Poloniex/Cryptsy and other services with interests in CLAM did as well....
If I had good evidence that a super-super-majority of the network wanted the change, and thus a soft-fork would be easily successful, there would come a point where we simply must accept the fact that the vast majority of those who support the network want the change.
The network IS, after all, it's users.

I would much prefer a change that made sense on it's face, without consideration of digs.
A change that would make sense to implement, improving network conditions, even if this 'digger' had never shown up.

In this vein-of-reasoning, and with the assumption that this is only my personal opinion, assuming anything at all ends up happening to 'fix' the dig situation:

Fees:
The network needs either a larger static fee, a dynamic fee system, or a time-based fee system.
This isn't optional - as our current fee system is inadequate to serve it's primary purpose: DDoS and Bloat protection.

Subsidy:
The argument that future large diggers pose an existential 51% risk is unlikely, but shouldn't be ignored.
I wouldn't be against an increase to the subsidy IF that increase was EQUALLY offset by an increase in the fee-system.


Combining those two elements, we have a fee system that charges a per-byte-per-block fee which is attributed to stakers.

We end up with a fee-system that reflects time, and more effectively prevents DDoS and Bloat.
We incentivize the staking of larger outputs, additionally improving txout bloat.
We have a situation where, in the future, pruning will be more effective due to the fact that unstaked outputs "expire" from fee over a long period of time.
We have a fee-system that is also robust enough to support the implementation of CLAMspeech as a decentralized, distributed database.
We more quickly 'mint' our moneysupply, without increasing it, and thus reduce the risk of 51% and the impact of large diggers.
We increase the incentive to stake, and thus secure the network.

There are likely additional benefits of fixing the incentive structure that aren't even listed.


I think smooth is correct in his concern that fundamental changes are made in a reactionary fashion to this recent digger.
Again, I would much prefer a change that made sense on it's face, without consideration of digs.

---

In the end, if changes are to be made, the users and stakeholders of CLAM will need to make their personal opinions known via CLAMour.

Poorly laid plans that gain traction via CLAMour will hopefully gain attention; and thus criticism.
I expect this to be a process that occurs over time, informed by CLAMour.

Of course I'm not arguing with the number, it is clearly correct. I'm suggesting that the context is very colored by not only the recent dig (which wasn't really out of line with previous "big digs") but by the panic it created.

There was no new information to come out of this latest experience, except the reaction of the community to it. Has the total supply changed? Did anyone doubt there were people out there with many addresses? Has the fundamental truth that the more coins are dug the fewer there are left to dig changed in any way? (BTW, the same can be said about "big digs" -- the more happen, the fewer can ever happen in the future.)


These numbers are misleading because of staking. The latest dig was only 60% of the active supply, not 150% of it. Future digs will be even smaller relative to active supply, both because more digging has already occurred but because staking will continue to dilute undug coins.

left out of your pie chart is staked clams that are in the pool but not dug and that number is big

Of Course. With word "maybe" I mean not this way exactly but in this area even if in opposite direction. Decision could be found with changing of a required conditions of first moving (claiming) dug coins. Is staker who got this first claiming transaction are able to verify belonging of destination address to an active node?

OK, so who should "decide everything", if not the coin's stakeholders?


I think this is what you are missing:

Before this whale digger appeared, around 72k old addresses had been dug up. That's 2.2% of the initial distribution.

Now that the whale digger has apparently finished, around 178k old addresses have been dug up. That's 5.5% of the initial distribution.

There's 94.5% of the initial distribution still undug.

People seem to be thinking that the whale digger's 3.3% is somehow significant, rather than being only 1/30th of the initial distribution.

This is a single guy who probably abused a bunch of faucets. Think about what happens if the Silk Road wallet ever gets dug up. Or the MtGox wallet. BTC-e. SatoshiDice. MyBitcoin. Pirate's Ponzi wallet. The various big mining pools. And so on. There are many more potential whale diggers out there.

BAC was actively petitioning the government to release the confiscated Silk Road private keys so he could dig the associated CLAMs.

tl;dr: one guy digging 3.3% of the initial distribution != "danger is now avoided". His actions are tiny in the scale of things.

Edit: some people find a graphical representation easier to understand. Everyone was freaking about about the impact of the orange area, but we're supposed to somehow not worry about the yellow area?




Why do you call that "FUD"? 94.5% of the initial distribution is still unclaimed. Are you arguing with that number, or you think it doesn't matter that this massive inflation we've just seen could happen again repeatedly in the future?

Not exactly, all the hoopla surrounding the digger (aka "curious") is over, since we bought him out. So that's over, and almost 300K clams have been introduced in the wild.

However, we are still going to vote through staking, to see just what the majority wants, in case of future diggers appearing (the likelihood of which is not insignificant). We need to figure this out before the next one shows up and throws the community into a nosedive again.

In any case, if you can't trust on the fundamental rules of a cryptocurrency then confidence in that altcoin is lost quite quickly since you are at mercy of the whales of that altcoin. If whales think that is a good idea then i think it might be a bad awakening for them.

You're missing that this CLAMour "vote on changes" concept was pushed at the very same time as all the talk about changing the rules to cut digging, by some of the same people who: 1. Were also talking about cutting digging, and 2. Very likely hold a large number of CLAMs giving them a large influence over the vote. So if you think the danger of undermining long term stability and trust with rule changes made for short term economic reasons is entirely avoided, I can't entirely share your optimism. But I hope you are right, and you may be right.

I do agree with the sentiment that some have expressed that We Survived the Great Digging Panic of 2015 and with the right response that can make the coin stronger and more resilient. But then you still have some people approaching it more from a FUD perspective ("Okay, but what about the next whale digger?! zOMG!!"), sadly.

On the surface I don't think there is anything to bad about a speed limit on digging (within reason, such if people do want to claim their CLAMs, they aren't forced to wait years and and probably lose interest but certainly lose out on years of staking), but I can't see a practical way to do it. There is no way to tell whether 1000 digs are one person or 1000 different people.


I don't know maybe. It seems someone with a lot of CLAMs to dig has a big advantage, and small diggers might be discouraged from even bothering.

Exactly that is what i thought too. Though i think that danger is now avoided isn't it? Price stabilizes and the fork is dead or am i missing something?

Same feelings. But perhaps I'll put a vote for some changes that could make massive speed digging or spending huge bulk of just dug coins with a function of time. In other words - something like this: digging and spending clams from 1-10 key pairs should be easy. Digging 10-100 key pairs also possible but will took more time (day?). 1000-10000 - will took a year.
Maybe "idea to require 'dig' outputs to be staked to be claimed" is the way in that direction.   

My concern is not about future whale diggers, my concern is:
"Why would future users of Clam, buy Clams, knowing that the protocol can change
if majority holders don't like something about the protocol, at that time?"
My concern is future users/investors.

For example with bitcoin, what if in the future, the 21 million cap is raised to 42 million?
The BTC price would not only tank due to future increase in potential supply,
but also the fact that the rules were changed, and that means there is no fundamental truth to the coin.
Nothing is "written in stone" with the coin. The risk of future loss is greater now, than if the protocol never changed, IMO.



I wouldn't consider "Cooked Clams" a fork.
I think it would be like a layer on top of the Clam network.

DogeParty is considered a layer to the Doge network.
(http://www.dogeparty.io/)
(https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/dogecoin-community-burning-currency-dogeparty/)

But I'm not a coder, so I don't know if a layer to Clam is still actually a fork of Clam.

By the way. How flood or spam CLAMspeach messages will be prevented?
"Only CLAMspeech messages associated with staked blocks ('coinstake') will be counted"
Am I understand right - a price of solostaking now is not very high?

Forking to 2 coins does not make sense.