Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 222. (Read 1151373 times)

  I wonder how often they update the active supply.  They show 1,079K and there is currently 1,460K.  Digger just finished digging in the last few days.   So they are off ~400K.  Which is quite a bit with such a low starting point. 

Yes that is well known.


The "top guy" on that list is xJDCLAMZkcp7fQ3ieHfZA4SLu3aTy2Y1mr

Did it not occur to you that is the same as the Just-Dice bankroll?


Yes but coinmarketcap does not count premined coins that aren't yet circulated. Same with ripple, etc.

It does correctly list "Total Supply" for CLAMS here but that number isn't used for market cap calculations, "Available Supply" is.

sure.  the site http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/ lists clams as 49th and says there are 1million clams worth 400k$

on justdice (https://just-dice.com/) there are 900k clams invested.  Almost the whole lot?
On (http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM) it says the top guy, with 800k clams has 5% of the total, implying 16million.
This site (http://khashier.com/chain/Clam) based on the blockchain says (i think) that there are 15.5million clams.

if they're 40cents each, that's more than $400k.  much more.  like 5 or 6 million dollars.

It is true the utility is limited by only having a few places to use clams.  But in the world of currencies, belief can become truth.
In the world period, actually.

Doesn't look that way to me. Please explain.

You think that's what it is?  Not its lack of utility beyond playing dice?

Whatever everyone decides (assuming it will be fair), I hope its the right answer.

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/

i think this site underestimates clam's market cap by a factor of 6 at least.
this leads people to avoid the currency

You're right. lol It was planned.. nothing coincidental about it what sooo ever.

edit

Please stop editting and/or manipulating my posts. eg. Just noticed how you omitted the "Informing people about the sockpuppet parade seen here IS productive." part of a previous post.

42Dice and/or maco were sneaky that way aswell..

I think she was just going to post further information about what the process is going to be by today..

Is voting still planned on going live today?

You know killing the clams and using bitcoin would be the answer wait till the next runup to $2000 and see all the bitcoin days destroyed and then the clams being dug.

Kill the clam

You make a lot of sense. I don't know how I got drawn into this discussion again. I was trying to stay out of it. I don't know what the answer is, and should refrain from talking as if I do.

It is not at all clear that this doesn't, or couldn't, cause any harm. It allows a conclusion to be promoted as "fair" when it may be nothing of the sort. You even used the phrase "provably fair" in your post. I recognize that is a being used as a term of art, but not everyone will recognize that. There is such a thing as sham votes that serve to falsely legitimize something that would seen as illegitimate if openly imposed a single party or a small oligopoly. Yet with on-chain voting, that can easily happen non-transparently.

With on-chain voting, it is impossible to know that one party or a small group doesn't control >50% of the votes, making everyone else's "vote" absolutely irrelevant if decisions are made by a "majority". Even control of a relatively large portion that isn't itself an absolute majority, say 30% (or likewise for decisions made by a super-majority threshold) by one person or a group acting together gives very disproportionate influence. (BTW, I'm not referring in any way to Just-Dice here, I'm referring more generally to beneficial coin ownership, on the assumption that you pass through voting rights as you have promised, or that people withdraw from JD in order to vote.)

It is taking what is already a system that is vulnerable to disproportionate influence by large stake holders (proof-of-stake) and further concentrating that influence with the very same large stake holders. One might imagine that stake-voting in a proof-of-work chain could make sense because the concentrated influence of large stake-holders could counterbalance the concentrated influence of large miners. But here it makes no sense at all.

On-chain "voting" is done for soft-forks only when they are non-contentious, and the threshold is extremely high (typically 95%). It is more a measure of how many have upgraded to the latest version to avoid breaking things than a decision-making process.

BTW, as bad as shouting at each other on forum posts might be, one person really can't shout 10 000 times louder than someone else, especially if obvious sock puppets are ignored. That's a feature.

Yes, I could, but I won't. I don't consider the CLAMs in the JD bankroll mine. They belong to the investors. For the voting phase I will have JD vote according to the wishes of its investors. For any subsequent soft-fork phase, I hadn't thought about that until now. I guess I need to have an option for each investor to decide whether they want to go with the soft fork or not, calculate which percentage of the bankroll is in favour, and use that percentage to decide how many blocks to stake in favour of the fork. That works, right?

If we're going to get hung up on what I *could* do, I could right now decide to orphan all blocks not staked by JD and take all the block rewards for myself. Hell, I could just steal the whole bankroll and not let anyone withdraw. All of those things are pretty easy to detect however, and quickly trash the value of the CLAMs I'm holding.

So long as I stick to my word and allow the owners of the coins I'm holding to have their say (in voting and in agreeing to any forks) then I don't see a problem. Although of course it would be better if no single entity had custody of more than 50% of the coins.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just mean if -YOU- decide to do the update and fork?  
Because you have [ control ] of the majority amount of clam?

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not 100% sure of all facts.  But its been the way I've been understanding this.

Disagree that it does that. It gathers provably-accurate information about votes, that is all.

Consensus exists because the network does not fail, and I'm not sure there is actually a better way to gather information than just that. That consensus is not necessarily egalitarian, however. Various parties may influence it in highly unequal ways.

I suppose there are different, largely subjective, ways to define what it means to fail. If control is centralized, even in a de facto manner, then I personally consider that a failure because much more efficient and mature centrally-controlled systems exist, making such a system pointless. Others may disagree with my assessment. No one can dictate what someone else values.

I was talking to Creative about this a couple of days ago. I was voicing my concerns that giving voting power proportional to stake means that the rich get to have their own way at the expense of the poor.

As Benjamin Franklin apparently never said:

  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

I worry that the CLAM rich will vote to disenfranchise the CLAM poor - but Creative points out that the voting system is only a provably fair way of gathering information about consensus. Any change would still be subject to the usual soft-fork rules, requiring a super-majority to be in favour of the fork before it activated. And the "CLAM rich" would have to be pretty short sighted to vote in any change which would be seen as unfair - because that would damage the price of the coin, and so end up affecting them negatively. Adding the ability to express your opinion on-chain in a well-defined way doesn't cause any harm, and allows us to get a clearer view of what the community wants than the current best system we have - that of shouting at each other in forum posts.

Looking at these charts it seems to me the historical rate of digging has been close to staking (the latter being mostly a constant except for the various rule changes). There have been periods of slow digging, and periods of faster digging. Perhaps that is somewhat a function of price action (slow digging -> less supply -> price increases -> more digging -> lower prices -> slow digging, repeat), or perhaps just independent fluctuations (or both).

Eventually staking has to dominate because the potential digging is finite, but that may not happen for a long time.

I believe effective decentralization will drive the price higher as the coin becomes more trustworthy for everyone. That can be part of a virtuous cycle where more decentralization leads to more trust and more adoption which leads to more decentralization. I also believe this can potentially be undermined by "voting" systems that are inherently centralizing (share of voting power is an increasing function of share of stake). That's somewhat similar to dooglas's point about delegated stake being potentially dangerous. I guess we'll see how it works out.

1) If it is truly exponential then each extra service multiplies the price by the same amount. Since 1->2 multiplies by 3, 2->3 should also multiply by 3, so it should be 9x with 3.

2) But it isn't exponential. After JD started taking CLAM, bitdice.me and fortunejack.com also started accepting it, but the price didn't increase much at all on that news. bustaclam.com too.


I've looked at doing something like that in the past, but came to the conclusion that it's probably not a good idea. If there was some way of giving "staking rights" to a third party without also giving "spending rights", then more people would feel comfortable signing away their staking rights. That would lead to bigger staking pools. Currently JD doesn't have much competition, because it is the most trusted, and so even though smooth's pool is free, people would rather pay the 10% for "a name they can trust". If you didn't need to trust smooth, everyone would stake with him, and he'd be able to 51% the network. I think it's best for that reason not to separate "staking rights" from "spending rights", to force people to think seriously about who they trust to stake their coin.

None of that is any reflection on smooth's character. I'm only using him as an example of "someone with less rep than JD".


It's hard to understand what you're asking. I don't know of any web wallets for CLAM (unless you count JD, bitdice, etc.). The CLAM client won't listen for RPC commands on external interfaces by default - it only listens on localhost. Comodo seems to be a company that issues SSL certificates.

If you can be clearer in what it is you're asking, I can hopefully help you better.


I think part of it is that before this massive dig, people were kind of believing that it would never really happen. "Sure there are a bunch of big wallets out there, but if anyone was going to dig them they would have done it by now". But now that it happened once, people realise that it can easily happen again. Then there's also the fact that we were probably going through a price bubble when he started, too. The price was rising steadily, so nobody was selling, so the price was rising... A sudden increase in supply can easily burst such a bubble.

Note also that it's not only a "bit higher supply". Before the digger the supply was 500k staked + 330k dug = 830k. Now it's 650k staked + 830k dug = 1480k, so the supply has almost doubled in the last 3 months. Even if we don't count staking, the digger's 500k represents a 60% inflation of the money supply as a percentage of the 830k supply we had when he started (500.0 * 100 / 830 = 60.24).

Edit: updated digging charts show it has really flattened off since our whale digger stopped:





Edit2: I miss KLYE. That last chart is clearly in need of a few more lines to turn it into a dinosaur with a gigantic penis.

If the digger has stopped, what is the difference between now and 2 months ago (except 90% lower value and a bit higher supply)?
The price seems loooooow.