anyone else successfully stake any pile lately, except just-dice?
I finally got one pile to stake today but unfortunately it gets rejected
also how bout the rule of 51% attack?
since dooglus' just-dice is staking more than 51% of the clams, hence having 51%+ hashing power
wouldn't that be easy for him to do 51% attack? just-a-thought and not accusing
That should be easy enough to check. Go to
http://khashier.com/ and click the blue block number. It's currently 260452. The link takes me to
http://khashier.com/block/d84202ff3e357f5faab4b468c95cf8db83e25252f7a9c24aab5bd32ef825fb2b - look at the 2nd transaction to see who staked the block - it was xJDCLAMZ - that's JD.
Click "Previous Block" to step back through the blocks:
260451 was also staked by JD - keep stepping back.
Eventually I get to block 260447 which was staked by xTZhVaTWpvScakxuhiurLQs2pVUSeK7pjq
On JD:
> validateaddress xTZhVaTWpvScakxuhiurLQs2pVUSeK7pjq
{
"isvalid" : true,
"address" : "xTZhVaTWpvScakxuhiurLQs2pVUSeK7pjq",
"ismine" : false
}
ie. it's not one of ours. Almost all the JD CLAMs are in the xJDCLAMZ address, to make it possible for people to check JD's solvency, and to know which blocks JD is staking.
So yeah, blocks 260448 through 260452 were all staked by JD, but block 260447 wasn't.
We have much more than 51% of the staking power, and so could reject all blocks staked by other people, but we don't. It wouldn't be good for CLAM in general to have JD abusing its position.
If I run 'getstakinginfo' for the JD bankroll, I see:
"weight" : 201619.54304143,
"netstakeweight" : 277407.71838880,
ie. we are currently 201619.54304143 * 100/ 277407.71838880 = 72.68% of the staking weight.
and if I look at
https://just-dice.com/wagered.txt, I see:
date wagered site profit staked
---------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
2014-12-06 21605.71219035 93.03317831 7.00040000
2014-12-07 73133.92487834 2364.67604652 314.01580000
2014-12-08 25685.58250766 2862.57147452 469.07910000
2014-12-09 84660.64450627 1792.98820790 524.06560000
2014-12-10 23848.60466994 -56.70526901 713.45070000
2014-12-11 11987.83799747 1317.19384883 782.54948868
2014-12-12 13479.68017232 348.38670880 735.79650000
2014-12-13 16508.67010791 426.85827642 981.65776685
2014-12-14 164133.46963259 3518.85897071 1057.87910000
2014-12-15 76284.70042818 2092.10884507 1045.82650000
2014-12-16 18907.27491911 748.87785165 1148.82220000
2014-12-17 29935.21894455 351.21818672 1149.39300000
2014-12-18 19100.66624692 179.11417573 1183.61300000
2014-12-19 18047.43147282 -861.57238363 1148.81100000
ie. we are staking around 1150 blocks per day. That is 1150 * 100.0 / (60*24) = 79.86% of the daily blocks.
Those numbers (72% and 79%) aren't as close as I would expect, but at least they're in the same ballpark. Maybe the whole network is actually staking more than 60*24 blocks per day, and so our 1150 is less than 79% of the daily total. I'll check and edit this post.
tl;dr: we have a large percentage of the staking weight and so stake a large percentage of the blocks
Edit: it seems like we're actually taking a little over 24 hours to stake a day's worth of blocks:
$ day() {
> d=$1
> python -c "print ($(echo $((clamd getblock $(clamd getblockhash $((height-60*24*d))); clamd getblock $(clamd getblockhash $((height-60*24*(d+1))))) | grep time | awk '{print $3}' | tr -d ,) | sed 's/ /-/')) / 3600.0"
> }
$ for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5; do day $d; done
24.0133333333
24.2711111111
24.0622222222
24.3422222222
24.1644444444
24.3111111111
ie. each of the last 6 sets of 1440 blocks has taken a little over 24 hours to stake.
Edit2: I just ran getstakinginfo again, and the numbers have changed. We now have 100* 201620.54375794 / 268853.12153023 = 74.9928% of the staking weight. So I guess that's the issue - getstakinginfo just gives an estimate of the network weight based on the time it took to find the last ~100 blocks, and so can get it quite wrong. I guess we have closer to 80% of the weight, since we're finding 80% of the blocks.
Before:
"weight" : 201619.54304143,
"netstakeweight" : 277407.71838880,
After:
"weight" : 201620.54375794,
"netstakeweight" : 268853.12153023,
I'm thinking the network weight didn't just drop from 277k to 268k in a few minutes, but what actually happened was that the network was relatively unlucky in the recent few minutes, making the estimated netstakeweight drop.
Edit3: finally, take a look at the chart of global network difficulty:
https://i.imgur.com/0ZEZhqz.pngIt is swinging wildly between 16k and 23k. That's almost a 50% swing, so the estimations of the network weight aren't going to be very accurate.
omg omg
?