Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 256. (Read 1151252 times)

   I think he wears shorts... 

But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving.  If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop. 

I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams.  and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase.  In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.   

   So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option.  As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.
   
     If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply.  If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K   
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.       

Do you take your lunch to work or ride the bus?

You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks?
Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing?

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

Ahh, thanks for disabusing me of that misunderstanding.


I'm afraid that's one of the occupational hazards of being cross-disciplinary, I'll try and keep a lid on it.


Cheers

Graham

After a day of thinking and spending the afternoon in the William J. Clinton Presidential Center I think I have an idea that will make everyone equally unhappy that will be the best for CLAM.

Perhaps we could do a halfing for both the digs and the stakes at the same % for each with both of them ending eventually in x years (?)

Y'alls big concerns are digs until the digs stop (end in sight) -  Addressed

My big concerns are never ending staking (no end in sight) (reference my Dogecoin freak out if you so wish) -  Addressed

How do people on both sides of the fence feel about that?

price will be drop and drop

i think that is good with the staking this way, it will be too little if the whole supply was dug so we can now have like a gold fever of staking. So in the future things will change and most of the profit (on jd) will be again by investing not by staking.

I am trying to follow the discussion. Some opinions that I have (disclaimers: I own clams held in JD):

- Are CLAM holders concerned about the whale digger? I think they shouldn't. It's not a surprising fact that a whale digger arrived and the staking of clams is proceeding quite quickly, at least at the same rate as the whale is digging (even though nobody know why).

-  Are CLAM holders concerned about the "low" price? I hope nobody here really thinks to be able to modify the price (like 'pumping' it) with some smart decision about the CLAM protocol, the market will always self-correct and these kind of bubbles are common to any cryptocoin anyway.

- Are CLAM holders concerned about future diggings? Since the rate of staking new coins is quite high, in two or three years new dug wallets *should* be irrelevant to the overall economy.

I personally think that currently we have another more important problem: staking is going very fast (we already have more staked coins than dug ones) and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.

OK, I see what he's saying: stopping the lottery reduced the reward from 1000 CLAMs to 1 CLAM per block, so that means the lottery system was like a pre-mine.

Maybe this chart can help show the reality of the situation. Pay attention to how the green supply curve changed when the lottery staking system ended on October 25th last year:



Hint: stopping the lottery caused the supply to increase much more quickly than before.

If he spent more time attempting to communicate his confused point and less time trying to think up new ways of insulting people's icing preferences we could have resolved this little misunderstanding much more quickly.

Stake inflation was made linear and slightly increased after the update you reference.

Your claims are not only plainly inaccurate; they are the exact opposite of what occurred.

---

I have no qualm with on-chain verifiable voting, assuming:

• the vote is a count of blocks staked,
• a vast majority of the network is running a client which implements the voting feature,
• the window over which the vote is counted is long enough to allow smaller stakers to have a chance to get a block and thus contribute.

This vote of course, by definition of how the network operates, can only inform the direction of development.
dooglus, xploited, creativecuriosity, and anyone else working on project are volunteers and can obviously not make any promises.
However, assuming a solid reliable vote from the staking community and the ability to get a working pull-request/code-change together that shouldn't be a problem.

Further, I would not like the more complicated time-based, per-byte-per-block proposal included in the vote.
This concept was put together before the digger and is not designed to "solve" that "issue" - though, it would mildly affect it over the long-term.

---

I would personally caution the community against fear and rash decisions.
Everyone who is a stake holder in CLAM should have their opinions (if respectfully submitted) considered.
The worst possible outcome from all of this would be to alienate our brothers and sisters who are contributing and helping with the project or community.

---

I have had a busy week (month).
I intend to be around over the next couple days more vigorously.
If you can't tell by perusing the thread history, I despise moderation/censorship.
Last warning to keep it productive and on-topic in the thread.

ANY ad hominem(personal) attacks will be deleted when they are seen.

Nice follow through on that eduffield btw.

The DRK/DASH shills used the very same tactics when it came to down playing concerns, skewing the facts and/or ignoring the obvious.

You somehow missed the fact that the reward reduction was much greater than 200x. "In short"... ANY reward reduction is a big fucking deal and Dooglus' "You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.", makes for some stanky icing on this Clammy shitcoin cake.

These are all fair points, but in answer to your question, yes I do think it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time. In this instance, it's only being done because the price has been hammered and people don't like the concept of one person having this much influence over the price, but let me ask this: if all the coins being dug were by individuals (as was intended originally) and the price was this low, would everyone still be going on about cutting off the digging supply? If yes, then you're violating the "free and fair" way the coins were intended to be distributed, and if no, then it seems you're just reacting to the fact that you don't like that the potential supply and actual supply are nearing parity when you got used to the concept that they never would. And if that's the case, then I go back to the argument that the potential supply has always been known and should have been a factor in your risk analysis. The fact that it wasn't is essentially a case of taking on too much risk and now seeking a bailout when that risk exposure turned on you. Wasn't the promise of crypto that such banking manipulations wouldn't be possible? If you could speak a little to this notion, I'm interested to hear. I can be convinced if the argument is compelling, but right now, this appears no different than a case of special interests changing the rules for their benefit, like the banks do all the time.

Since I don't think the rules should be changed at this point I guess I'm also opposed to having a vote on changing the parameters for the coin.

Also, doesn't this help the dig whale?  Didn't he dig his coins as soon as he imported his btc/ltc/doge wallets into the clam client?

Also, curtailing digging would seem to work strongly against clam adoption.  If the coin is ever going to be more than a JD token, and I like JD a lot, it seems that the ability for people to get their free clams should be preserved.

Maybe that is a solution, dooglus forks clam and the ownership is one doogcoin per clam that is visible to the network.  Clam can go on to maybe become successful via future adoption, and everyone's doogcoins increase in value as people flock to invest and play on JD.

I'm sure that's nuts, but it doesn't require a vote nor changing the rules for the coin.

Regardless, thanks and good luck.

The way to make if fair between current and future participants is by not making changes the the fundamental economic structure at all. That creates an equivalence between people who are involved now and people who are involved in the future in that neither get to vote. This in turn avoids future participants feeling disadvantaged (and thus discouraged from participating) because they weren't around when important economic decisions are made. It also avoids people not wanting to invest as small participants because they risk getting screwed over by larger participants voting their own interests.

As you point out, you can't make it fair by allowing both current and future participants to vote, so you make it fair by allowing neither to vote.

The sensible way to address not liking something about the fundamental economic design a coin is to create a new coin. Use the claim method to preserve the existing distribution if you think the existing distribution is a good starting point. That has the same economic effect as forking the chain except that you avoid having transactions that confirm on either or both chains, leading to chaos.

This, BTW, includes the idea of whether changes can be made by voting. If you want a coin where the design states that coin holders vote by balance on future changes then create one, but put that in the design from the start, so again everyone is entering on equal terms.

The post you linked to is where the devs turned off the exploitable 'lottery' staking system after discovering it was being exploited. At that point CLAM was very cheap and stayed so for another couple of months. Nobody had (or has) a strange hold on the coin supply. You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.

As gaba says, the big increase in the price of CLAM corresponds directly with the launch of Just-Dice, and came 2 months after the hard fork you linked to.

I've no idea what an eduffield is, and suspect you are just trolling. But I thought I should point out the errors in your post anyway.


Of course. That's why I put it in quotes.


I guess you mean Creative or Xploited. Deb doesn't have anything to do with CLAM other than being a chat mod at Just-Dice.


We do have a notion of "the official CLAM website", "the CLAM github", and this "official CLAM thread", which is moderated by one of the creators of CLAM. Nobody is under any illusions about the transitory nature of such "officialdom". It's a consensus coin, and if the creators find themselves on the wrong side of the consensus then I'm sure they understand the implications. Perhaps it would be better not to use the O-word, but doing so doesn't change the reality of the situation.


Bitcoin's two forks are currently identical in terms of which blocks they accept and so there's no issue (yet). If someone was to create and publish a CLAM fork which refuses to accept any transactions that spend or stake an output from block 9999 or earlier (those being the initial distribution outputs) after block 730k (say) (that being a couple of days from now) then we end up with two incompatible chains very quickly. Poloniex will be running one fork, Cryptsy will be running the other, I'll be able to send my coins to both exchanges and sell them twice. That's more than just a theoretical issue.


Yes. Only allowing people who hold coins to vote about the future of the coin could be argued to be unfair to those who didn't yet discover the coin. But how else do we make it fair? There are billions of people who didn't discover the coin.

I saw an argument made recently that "I already sold my coins because the price keeps going down, so I wouldn't get a vote and that isn't fair". I would argue that if your solution to solving the problem caused by the massive inflationary pressure is to dump your coins onto others until the situation improves then you don't get to have a say in how to improve the situation. You've made it someone else's problem by selling your coins. Let those who bought them off you have their say, since they are directly involved in the outcome.


It's a notion pertinent to the social psychology of the context, I made a mistake in mentioning it. Basically, I was just hand-wavily referring to a means of promulgating the social mores of the group. Identity cannot develop sanely in isolation; this is true for the individual and for a social group. For any significant degree of social cohesion to be achieved, group members need to know how “a group member” is typically supposed to think/behave in order that they may compare themselves against this norm, this is the same factor that lies at the root of pluralistic ignorance and to a degree is in play in this discussion. Just observing the lacuna, thassall.