Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 255. (Read 1151252 times)

Why not implement said Doogcoin alongside Clam on JD, instead of in its place? Kind of like Alex's site where you can gamble a few different crypto's with one common trollbox, etc?

What is "the stake problem"? I don't see any problem with staking. It is a fair way of rewarding those who help secure the network, at the expense of those who decide not to.

I'm not sure whether the "fuck you, don't answer my posts" clause is still in effect. I'll err on the side of caution and disregard them until I hear differently.

In so far as the digger is dumping and forcing the price down, yes.

I'm not sure you meant "staking" there, since it doesn't make much sense. Staking happens once per minute, by design, whoever is digging, dumping, or whatever else.


I really do think that if the rules were changed to stop new CLAMs being dug up then there would be less supply, more demand, and an increase in price. I'm surprised you don't. As I understand it, nobody is claiming that stopping the digging wouldn't cause the price to rise. The objection is only whether it is fair to do such a thing.


I think the concern is that we don't have two or three years. If the price continues dropping for another year will anyone still be interested in the coin? There are hundreds if not thousands of dead altcoins out there which would be staking nicely if only anyone could be bothered to still have the wallet running.


This seems to be a common misconception:

"Staking is like inflation, and inflation is bad"

We feel that inflation is bad, because in the fiat world we put $1000 in a savings account, earn 2% interest on it, but in the mean time the money supply has been inflated 10% by quantitative easing. Our $1002 now has less buying power than it had before. It is a smaller percentage of the total money supply.

This is even true with PoW coins like DogeCoin. Miners get to earn block rewards forever. We buy a million DOGE, save it, and every day our million DOGE represents a smaller and smaller percentage of the money supply.

However! For PoS coins this isn't the case. We buy 1000 CLAMs, and it's 0.1% of the 1 million total money supply, say. If there's no digging, and only staking, then a year later another 500k CLAMs have been staked. But we have staked 500 of that 500k, since we are 0.1% of the staking weight. So now we have 1500 of the 1.5 million supply, and still have 0.1% of the total money supply. Sure, assuming a constant market cap the price will have decreased by 50%, but our holdings have increased by 50% too, so our net worth in CLAM has remained constant.

In this way staking is NOT the same as the inflation we see in USD, BTC, or DOGE, since the newly created coins are shared out to existing holders in proportion to their holdings.


but it shouldn't. Staking is "running to stay still". The only people you will be overtaking are those who aren't running (staking). I mean, staking isn't some magic wealth creation system. If everyone is staking, where does all that extra value come from? It doesn't. It increases the money supply while decreasing the per-unit value of that supply.

I decided to reply to each post in a separate post to make it easier for people to reply to me. Let me know if it looks too spammy and I'll go back to single large mega-replies...


The act of importing an old BTC wallet into your CLAM client doesn't cause any effect at all on the blockchain or CLAM p2p network. We just can't tell how many CLAMs have been dug up.

The first we know about a dig is when the digger first stakes or spends his 4.6 CLAM output.

That "first stake or spend" is the act we are talking about changing the rules for.

So yes, it's possible that you imported your old BTC wallet a year ago, found 10 funded addresses and now have a balance of 46 CLAMs which you have never staked or spent.

If we voted to "stop all digging", one day you would upgrade your wallet software and see that your balance went from 46 to 0 with the upgrade, since the new version of the software would no longer recognise any old 4.6 output that hadn't moved yet.


I agree, but continuing digging does the same. The constant dilution of the money supply and the associated downward pressure on the price makes CLAM an unattractive asset to hold. It appears to be a lose/lose decision. Either we violate the sanctity of the initial distribution and change the rules, or we watch the coin's value diluted closer and closer to zero.


Huh, that's what 'smooth' said in the previous post too.

Is it nuts? It seems we have two very different groups here - those who want the initial rules kept, and those who want a coin they can hold for value. Perhaps we can only satisfy both groups by having two very different coins?

So we have two main camps here. Exaggerating the positions, we have:

Camp A: wants to leave everything how it is so it's fair for future diggers. It's not OK to cancel their free CLAMs. The stakeholders knew massive digging was a risk and accepted it. They hoped it wouldn't happen but it did. Suck it up.

Camp B: bought into CLAM and saw the price drop. To fix this, let's ban digging. Then the price can recover and we can all get rich.

Sure there are shades of grey between these extremes, involving halvenings and such like, but let's ignore those for now.

You're proposing a third camp:

Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?

Anyone who wants digging to stop switches to doogcoin. Presumably JD switches to doogcoin too. I guess most CLAM holders dump their CLAM to buy more doogcoin. CLAM price goes to 0, doogcoin price goes to the moon. Is that the correct outcome? Is that what you're proposing?

What do people think of this "Camp C" option?

It seems like would satisfy both Camp A (since we're not changing the rules of CLAM, like they want) and Camp B (since it gives them a way of holding their value without being diluted by future diggers). Did I miss anything?

I was staking ~500 blocks per day, or around 30% of the network total. I had my fair share of big wins, but the majority of stakes were 0.1 CLAMs. During the lottery staking the average stake size was lower than the current 1 CLAM per block.


Staking is a way of keeping up with inflation. To get a percentage of the CLAM supply you dig it or buy it. On average, staking doesn't change your percentage of the supply unless other holders fall behind by not staking.


I only had a single wallet. I no longer stake my own wallet. I have my CLAMs invested at Just-Dice where I have a minority share of the pool. So no, once I introduced CLAM to a much wider audience I wasn't able to keep staking 500 CLAMs per day. My percentage of the money supply has been steadily falling.


No. Google asks me "Did you mean: cryptocat" so I guess it isn't a widely used term.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/11/microsoft-bitcoin-currency-banks/



https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/apple-reverses-anti-bitcoin-app-policy-allows-mobile-wallets-back-apple-store/


http://qz.com/507524/bank-of-america-just-filed-a-patent-that-would-let-you-send-money-using-bitcoin/

A piece from the BAC patent:

"For example, the payment system using the account may function to pay tolls in dollars to a toll collecting authority, but to pay a gameplay authority in a non-dollar denominated medium of exchange, for example digital currency (such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Feathercoin (FTC), Terracoin (TRC), Namecoin (NMC), Novacoin (NVC), or similar), gold, e-gold, digital credits, frequent flier miles, loyalty points, or similar stores of value. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority may operate a payment system on the Dulles Toll Road in Northern Virginia in conjunction with an American Airlines promotion, wherein frequent flier miles are able to be deducted from an account and awarded to others in a contest, game, lottery or sweepstakes. In an embodiment, an account holder may elect to donate 100 frequent flier miles back American Airlines on each toll payment, where American Airlines may elect to use the aggregated miles to conduct a sweepstakes."

Full Patent: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=bitcoin&OS=bitcoin&RS=bitcoin

I'm sure CLAM could have been there, but the left the door open anyways.

How do you know?

Confused ? We aren't.

The lottery continued on for almost two months after your last reported big win. How many more big wins did you mine ?

What percentage of the total CLAM supply did you "win", by the time the fork came into effect ?



That was your take with a single wallet. Since the fork, is it safe to assume that you have been able to maintain the status quo seen above ?

Does the term cryptofiat mean anything to you ?

Thats exactly what i meant , my english and the lack of time (was at work) didnt let me explain what i thinked well but you got it nice there.

   These are 2 different networks.  BTC, LTC etc are POW (Proof of Work) networks,  They rely on miners to keep the network moving/safe.  Clams is POS (Proof of stake) and uses the wallets, instead of miners, to keep the network moving/safe.   


    Well,  The beans are not "coming into the economy for nothing", they are payments to the client's (Wallets, daemons) for keeping the network running. Nothing is free.   Bitcoin has block rewards as payments, the miners also get all fees in the block they mine.  The thought with bitcoin is as the actual block reward decreases, the fees will increase somewhat, and it will still be economical to mine. 

    But you do bring up a good point, "are staking rewards in line with what the coin wants to achieve?".   


    I'm not sure what your trying  to say here. 

If your trying to say Microsoft, Apple or BoA would get involved with Clams.   Any "BIG" company that wanted to get involved with crypto-currencies, would simply create their own.  They wouldn't invest in a coin they didn't control.  Do you think IBM wants to worry about some changes a bunch of yahoo's (Self included) from the internet want to make?     


   I'm sure it could.  But I'm not suggesting it.  I personally don't mind the 1 clam reward.  And I've seen no indication it hinders the price of clams.  But that could be a topic of discussion.     

You're most likely correct .


People run Bitcoin wallets, LTC and ect ect.  JD most likely isn't going to turn the wallets off and I'm reasonably sure other people would continue to run a wallet if they were a part of that ecosystem.


Well of course the % will go down on massively inflated stuff with just a tiny dash of time, but CLAM can't write checks its ass can't cash forever...  "There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins, so they are special"x- "There is only so much silver/gold/ect in the ground that can be reached economically" so on and so forth.  With CLAM it's like "Ya basically one magic internet bean comes into the economy for nothing every minute... wana invest?"


December of last year the digs increased and the stake rewards value increased as well.  We could have that 100 fold if a real service ever started diddling with CLAM (Microsoft, Apple, Bank of America ect.)


Why couldn't that be done none with consensus now?