i have stupid questions. where do i ask those? such as why does my client say spendable 300 stake 0?
Stop into freenode IRC, #clams.
Talk to creativeCLAM.
Happy to walk you through basic usage
Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 234. (Read 1151373 times)
November 19, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
Stop into freenode IRC, #clams.
Talk to creativeCLAM.
Happy to walk you through basic usage
November 19, 2015, 06:54:20 PM
i have stupid questions. where do i ask those? such as why does my client say spendable 300 stake 0?
November 19, 2015, 06:47:21 PM
Dooglus noticed this and was smart to figure out the total coins that I have yet to dig. He posted a comment on this thread and THAT was the reason why the price dumped hard. That's how markets work. Oh, and the chat about forking the coin made the price dump even harder.
Told ya....played like a violin.
November 19, 2015, 06:46:16 PM
Trying to do the math on the Proof-Of-Chain distribution.
CLAMS has a total POSSIBLE distribution of 15 Million.
I think that is not taking everything into consideration, however.
Actual Total Distribution = Total Possible - Lost BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Destroyed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Un-Redeemed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys
The question is, what does that mean?
I would expect the total distribution of CLAMS to be EXREMELY LESS than 15 Million at any given time. In order to get to the full 15 Million possible distribution it would have to be one of if not THE world's leading crypto-currency.
Mining inflation normally destroys coins.
For every coin created by mining, there must be an equal in-flow of dollars of demand. If there isn't then the value of the coin drops.
With CLAMS, there is no mining and only 1% Proof-Of-Stake.
So each unit of demand should only be counter-acted by new users who redeem their CLAMS. And, new users who redeem their CLAMS are in and of themselves a source of demand.
If you add to that equation the kHashier.com multi-pool, which has been stacking BTC while waiting for the markets to adopt and have a stable market for CLAMS.....
I still think those who dump their CLAMS immediately after redeeming, or those who don't keep an eye on this one will deeply regret it.
I don't see a single negative when the economics are considered.
Just my two-cents.
^^ We think all of those assumptions are reasonable.CLAMS has a total POSSIBLE distribution of 15 Million.
I think that is not taking everything into consideration, however.
Actual Total Distribution = Total Possible - Lost BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Destroyed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Un-Redeemed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys
The question is, what does that mean?
I would expect the total distribution of CLAMS to be EXREMELY LESS than 15 Million at any given time. In order to get to the full 15 Million possible distribution it would have to be one of if not THE world's leading crypto-currency.
Mining inflation normally destroys coins.
For every coin created by mining, there must be an equal in-flow of dollars of demand. If there isn't then the value of the coin drops.
With CLAMS, there is no mining and only 1% Proof-Of-Stake.
So each unit of demand should only be counter-acted by new users who redeem their CLAMS. And, new users who redeem their CLAMS are in and of themselves a source of demand.
If you add to that equation the kHashier.com multi-pool, which has been stacking BTC while waiting for the markets to adopt and have a stable market for CLAMS.....
I still think those who dump their CLAMS immediately after redeeming, or those who don't keep an eye on this one will deeply regret it.
I don't see a single negative when the economics are considered.
Just my two-cents.
We designed CLAMS with the idea that inflation cause by claiming CLAMS would correlate to and be counter-balanced with an increase in demand.
The idea was to create stability, instead of the extreme mining pump and dump inflation cycle.
You seem intelligent, and we are glad you agree
More Users = More Coins.
So simple, yet it makes so much sense.
If this one ever catches fire, watch out world.
SuperClam was much more of a 'combined' account around the launch of CLAM, with all of the messages being cross-pasted back and forth and cross-edited.
You've uncovered two super-secret treasures:
- A cross-compliment between xploited and I, and
- A failed attempt to bump the thread so people actual found out about CLAM
November 19, 2015, 06:17:49 PM
Aww Doog, that's not an appropriate analogy. In context, his statement was about dismissing the threat of JD being over 70% of all CLAM holders because all the money on JD belongs to investors, not you, which as we both know is not a salient point re: CLAM concentration. To use your analogy, my claim to "ownership" of the car in your example is completely irrelevant to your ability to smash it into the wall after I hand you the keys. No one is disputing the legal/moral claim to ownership of the coins on JD, but the ability to control them is what is in question. If you don't like the term "ownership," substitute it with Custody, which is what it's called in the financial world. That reflects that you don't rightfully own it, but you have full ability to control it.
I think the analogy works just fine. I don't own the borrowed car, but can totally drive it into a wall if I want to.
Custody works better, yes.
My tone on this page and the last may seem more antagonistic than it really is, doog, but this is typical open source rhetoric - we're not all coders.
And that's typical open source rebuttal. Nobody says you have to write the code yourself. You can pay someone to write it for you.
What you can't reasonably do is expect "the higher ups" to write it for you.
November 19, 2015, 06:09:26 PM
Trying to do the math on the Proof-Of-Chain distribution.
CLAMS has a total POSSIBLE distribution of 15 Million.
I think that is not taking everything into consideration, however.
Actual Total Distribution = Total Possible - Lost BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Destroyed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Un-Redeemed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys
The question is, what does that mean?
I would expect the total distribution of CLAMS to be EXREMELY LESS than 15 Million at any given time. In order to get to the full 15 Million possible distribution it would have to be one of if not THE world's leading crypto-currency.
Mining inflation normally destroys coins.
For every coin created by mining, there must be an equal in-flow of dollars of demand. If there isn't then the value of the coin drops.
With CLAMS, there is no mining and only 1% Proof-Of-Stake.
So each unit of demand should only be counter-acted by new users who redeem their CLAMS. And, new users who redeem their CLAMS are in and of themselves a source of demand.
If you add to that equation the kHashier.com multi-pool, which has been stacking BTC while waiting for the markets to adopt and have a stable market for CLAMS.....
I still think those who dump their CLAMS immediately after redeeming, or those who don't keep an eye on this one will deeply regret it.
I don't see a single negative when the economics are considered.
Just my two-cents.
^^ We think all of those assumptions are reasonable.CLAMS has a total POSSIBLE distribution of 15 Million.
I think that is not taking everything into consideration, however.
Actual Total Distribution = Total Possible - Lost BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Destroyed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys - Un-Redeemed BTC/LTC/DOGE privateKeys
The question is, what does that mean?
I would expect the total distribution of CLAMS to be EXREMELY LESS than 15 Million at any given time. In order to get to the full 15 Million possible distribution it would have to be one of if not THE world's leading crypto-currency.
Mining inflation normally destroys coins.
For every coin created by mining, there must be an equal in-flow of dollars of demand. If there isn't then the value of the coin drops.
With CLAMS, there is no mining and only 1% Proof-Of-Stake.
So each unit of demand should only be counter-acted by new users who redeem their CLAMS. And, new users who redeem their CLAMS are in and of themselves a source of demand.
If you add to that equation the kHashier.com multi-pool, which has been stacking BTC while waiting for the markets to adopt and have a stable market for CLAMS.....
I still think those who dump their CLAMS immediately after redeeming, or those who don't keep an eye on this one will deeply regret it.
I don't see a single negative when the economics are considered.
Just my two-cents.
We designed CLAMS with the idea that inflation cause by claiming CLAMS would correlate to and be counter-balanced with an increase in demand.
The idea was to create stability, instead of the extreme mining pump and dump inflation cycle.
You seem intelligent, and we are glad you agree
I think people will look back on these posts in some months and wonder how the hell they missed it. Maybe not. But with all the billion coin supply cryptos, it is rare to see one that makes economic and adoption sense.
More Users = More Coins.
So simple, yet it makes so much sense.
If this one ever catches fire, watch out world.
Now I'm confused. Aren't you two the same person?
November 19, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
Indeed. One look at http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM tells you that.The comments concerning network security are correct.
A large concentration of the staking weight injects the element of trust into the system.
A party willing to wait the time for additional confirms can minimize this trust to a degree.
But, the system is intended to allow users to not require such trust.
Just-Dice has been undoubtedly positive for the awareness and utility of CLAM, and continues to be so.
The solution, as previously mentioned, is to grow our way out of it.
We need additional services and utility, as well as code updates or software which make self-staking CLAM more seamless.
If anyone has the skill and motivation to create a service around CLAM, but needs a bit of help, please feel free to stop in to freenode IRC, channel #clams.
We would be happy to help.
November 19, 2015, 05:31:45 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.
When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
Indeed. One look at http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM tells you that.
The top guy has 5%. Why is that so bad? It's like that in real life with dollars isn't it?
Its over 70% of the current supply and that is bad from a network security standpoint
I don't see the problem. It's a currency that derives almost 100% of its value from Just-dice. Having the coins staked there seems as safe as anything.
November 19, 2015, 05:26:03 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.
When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
Indeed. One look at http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM tells you that.
The top guy has 5%. Why is that so bad? It's like that in real life with dollars isn't it?
Its over 70% of the current supply and that is bad from a network security standpoint
November 19, 2015, 05:14:36 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.
When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
Indeed. One look at http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM tells you that.
The top guy has 5%. Why is that so bad? It's like that in real life with dollars isn't it?
November 19, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
That's true, but I don't think it's their responsibility to do so. They make the coin available to us, and we are free to use it how we like. I found the coin and decided to use it at Just-Dice. The client wasn't in a state that worked for me, so I made a bunch of changes to it to make it work how I needed it to work, and contributed those changes back to the open source codebase. That's how it's meant to work - provide the services you want to see, and don't wait for "people at the high levels" to do it for you. In fact there are no "levels" - you're free to use and build CLAM however you like.
My tone on this page and the last may seem more antagonistic than it really is, doog, but this is typical open source rhetoric - we're not all coders.
That's hardly the point. He contributed code back but other people can contribute in other ways. A lot of marketing and trying to convince sites to support a coin can be done by anyone. In fact it is often more effective if it comes from many grass roots supporters than from a few coin developers.
November 19, 2015, 05:10:07 PM
That's true, but I don't think it's their responsibility to do so. They make the coin available to us, and we are free to use it how we like. I found the coin and decided to use it at Just-Dice. The client wasn't in a state that worked for me, so I made a bunch of changes to it to make it work how I needed it to work, and contributed those changes back to the open source codebase. That's how it's meant to work - provide the services you want to see, and don't wait for "people at the high levels" to do it for you. In fact there are no "levels" - you're free to use and build CLAM however you like.
My tone on this page and the last may seem more antagonistic than it really is, doog, but this is typical open source rhetoric - we're not all coders.
November 19, 2015, 05:00:29 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.
When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
Aww Doog, that's not an appropriate analogy. In context, his statement was about dismissing the threat of JD being over 70% of all CLAM holders because all the money on JD belongs to investors, not you, which as we both know is not a salient point re: CLAM concentration. To use your analogy, my claim to "ownership" of the car in your example is completely irrelevant to your ability to smash it into the wall after I hand you the keys. No one is disputing the legal/moral claim to ownership of the coins on JD, but the ability to control them is what is in question. If you don't like the term "ownership," substitute it with Custody, which is what it's called in the financial world. That reflects that you don't rightfully own it, but you have full ability to control it.
November 19, 2015, 04:57:16 PM
If you're not holding, you're dumping. I think that being measured about it doesn't change this fact. This is not to say that it's a bad thing (I'm agnostic about that), but call a spade a spade. Btw, thanks for identifying yourself and adding some small measure of clarity to this situation. I do believe that anyone else here, if they found themselves in your shoes, would be responding to the same economic incentive in much the same manner you are.
Ok, you are right.
If i were you (I wish:) I would reach out to some deep pocketed members here on the forum and try to sell of clams outside of the exchanges. Then announce your positions here.
November 19, 2015, 04:34:08 PM
He who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it.
I disagree.
When you lend me your car for the day does it become my car just because I have the keys? Just because I could steal it if I wanted to?
When you call the cops on me do they say "well, he has the key, so it's his car now". They don't. Ownership is something more than simple control.
The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
Indeed. One look at http://blocktree.io/richlist/CLAM tells you that.
November 19, 2015, 04:15:23 PM
Ok, guys. I'm the whale digger. I can prove it if necessary.
Yes, it is true that I am digging and selling my CLAMs for BTC. Though I am not dumping hard. I usually just put asks above the market price. I rarely ever do a market sell order. So although I am adding sell pressure to the price by adding asks to the orderbook, I am not "dumping" technically. The main reason why the price crashed hard is because the fear of me dumping. This lead everyone else to dump.
Yes, it is true that I am digging and selling my CLAMs for BTC. Though I am not dumping hard. I usually just put asks above the market price. I rarely ever do a market sell order. So although I am adding sell pressure to the price by adding asks to the orderbook, I am not "dumping" technically. The main reason why the price crashed hard is because the fear of me dumping. This lead everyone else to dump.
If you're not holding, you're dumping. I think that being measured about it doesn't change this fact. This is not to say that it's a bad thing (I'm agnostic about that), but call a spade a spade. Btw, thanks for identifying yourself and adding some small measure of clarity to this situation. I do believe that anyone else here, if they found themselves in your shoes, would be responding to the same economic incentive in much the same manner you are.
November 19, 2015, 04:08:12 PM
1. Certain people creating shady services that benefited from the value you brought to Clam
No need for me to point any fingers I am sure its very clear to most
No need for me to point any fingers I am sure its very clear to most
I have NoAreaClue who you could be referring to.
2. The uncertainty of more large holders/diggers with questionable ways they happened to have so many addresses
Clearly the large digger benefited immensely from the Value you brought to clam
Its just seems to me like many variables are out of your(most everyones) control
I guess everyone knows another 500,000 free clam holder could pop up tomorrow and its what we all signed up for
Clearly the large digger benefited immensely from the Value you brought to clam
Its just seems to me like many variables are out of your(most everyones) control
I guess everyone knows another 500,000 free clam holder could pop up tomorrow and its what we all signed up for
OK, I see. Undoubtedly the digger made (and will make) a whole lot of money that he wouldn't have made if Just-Dice hadn't adopted CLAM.
I don't have a problem with that though. I guess your word "skimming" made it sound like you were implying some kind of a scam, whereas I don't think either of your examples are scammy - just opportunistic.
opportunistic is probably a better word, but I am not ruling out scammy yet.
November 19, 2015, 04:05:01 PM
It's cute that people say this, but JD has controlled more than 50% of the coin supply ever since I've been using it. It's over 70% currently, peaked around 77% recently, somebody big divested, it would seem.
Yes, but it is not Doog's money, but from the investors, and there is no one big investor: http://just-dice.blogspot.de/search/label/bankrollHe who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it. He's just promised to return it to your control upon your request, and there's no reason at all to doubt he won't, but don't be confused about the fact that it's not your money until it's returned to your control. The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently.
November 19, 2015, 04:03:29 PM
[/quote]
We could solve the issue now if people would just take half of what they have on Jd and stake on a local wallet.
[/quote]
Imagine everyone did this. Everyone's exposure to betting would remain the same as before (at their desired level). Nothing would change except that we would have much better security. Then one person goes to 52%/48% to get that little edge, and sooner or later you are at equilibrium (right now). The only solution to this problem is probably to brain wipe all CLAM investors, close off investment, and implant the investors with a religion where the mortal sin is changing your ratio to 50%/50%. On the upside if we did this, we could finally have the army of farmers we need sustain that Just-Dice CLAM off-grid cult farm.
November 19, 2015, 04:02:27 PM
1. Certain people creating shady services that benefited from the value you brought to Clam
No need for me to point any fingers I am sure its very clear to most
No need for me to point any fingers I am sure its very clear to most
I have NoAreaClue who you could be referring to.
2. The uncertainty of more large holders/diggers with questionable ways they happened to have so many addresses
Clearly the large digger benefited immensely from the Value you brought to clam
Its just seems to me like many variables are out of your(most everyones) control
I guess everyone knows another 500,000 free clam holder could pop up tomorrow and its what we all signed up for
Clearly the large digger benefited immensely from the Value you brought to clam
Its just seems to me like many variables are out of your(most everyones) control
I guess everyone knows another 500,000 free clam holder could pop up tomorrow and its what we all signed up for
OK, I see. Undoubtedly the digger made (and will make) a whole lot of money that he wouldn't have made if Just-Dice hadn't adopted CLAM.
I don't have a problem with that though. I guess your word "skimming" made it sound like you were implying some kind of a scam, whereas I don't think either of your examples are scammy - just opportunistic.
Jump to: