Quote from: VultureFund on December 05, 2015, 07:33:17 PM

Quote from: dooglus on December 05, 2015, 07:25:35 PM

I'm not an expert, but doesn't having a big short position mean that you already borrowed a bunch of CLAM and sold them? If so, why would there be dumps happening? It sounds to me like you're hoping people will panic in response to your message and sell cheap so you can buy back the coins you already dumped and get out of the hole you are currently in.

Hey doggy, if you want some information of how this works PM and I'll explain you. I cannot share this here.

I PM'ed you yesterday but didn't get any reply. Please don't tell me you're just trying to drop the price and have nothing to back it up.

Quote from: o_dima on December 06, 2015, 09:32:47 AM

Also thanks for improving clarity of clamour_weights page.
But what is still unclear at least for me:
as I understand these %% represents only Just-Dice's bankroll, .
So if

Code:

12:01:14 INFO: 819,509 CLAM were dug up and 656,419 CLAM were staked for a total of 1,475,927 CLAM
12:01:14 INFO: Just-Dice's onsite bankroll of 1,089,797 CLAM represents 73.84% of that amount

then

Code:

"ea06c089 has 10.31% support..."

means
"10.31 * 0.7384 = 7.61% support within all network" - right?
And how can we know voting weights of 26.16% rest staking CLAMs which are outside of JD?

Note that while JD has 74% of the CLAMs which have ever moved, some of the remaining 26% is sitting idle. Lost, in cold storage, on an exchange that doesn't stake, etc. There's over 100k at Poloniex which never stakes. So JD's share of the staking weight is higher than 74%.

If you scroll to the end of https://just-dice.com/misc/wagered.txt you'll see that JD stakes around 1200 CLAMs per day. The network as a whole tries to stake one CLAM per minute, or 1440 per day. 1200 is 83.33% of 1440, which suggests that JD has around 83.33% of the staking weight.

As for knowing the voting weights of the other ~17%, we can't, unless they tell us. All we can do is count up the votes on the blockchain and see what is actually being voted for.

I didn't hear about anyone actually counting votes yet, but it will need to be done sooner or later.

This morning I registered a new petition on the blockchain (see http://txti.es/clamour for a list):

petition ID 0000cb61 -- "I am aware of clamours but I don't like any registered proposal yet"

If you wish to register the fact that you are deliberately abstaining, you can use that petition ID to make it clear that you are actively not supporting any petition. It begins with a bunch of zeroes, suggestive of supporting "nothing".

Code:

$ echo -n "I am aware of clamours but I don't like any registered proposal yet" | sha256sum
0000cb61378e8324d0819e9a2444e6f3fd15e3a0ecac57514985f615fb16ba5c -

Quote from: GordoZ on December 06, 2015, 05:21:59 PM

Hi. Would someone explain me why was proposed to change the staking reward from 1 Clam t o10 Clam?
Give me the good and bads.
Thanx.

That proposal was created by Deb. She reads this thread religiously, but never posts in it.

But the idea is older:

Trent Russell proposed it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg13101661#msg13101661

I replied like this:

Quote from: dooglus on November 29, 2015, 09:39:30 PM

Quote from: Trent Russell on November 29, 2015, 02:02:00 PM

About the current/future whale diggers, one possibility I haven't heard mentioned would be very simple and would dilute the initial distribution: increase the reward. There's at least a precedent for changing the reward system in Clams.

That certainly has a couple of benefits over decreasing the 4.6 CLAM reward:

1) We don't have to break any promises. "If you owned BTC you may already own CLAM!" stays true. The 4.6 per address that you "may already own!" stays there. We aren't accused of deleting people's property.

2) Technically, it's awkward to implement a reduction in the initial rewards. What if I've dug my address but not spent or staked it yet? I see 4.6 CLAMs in my wallet. One day I update the client and what, my balance drops to 2.3? What if I try spending my 4.6 CLAMs just before the hard fork, but by the time it confirms the fork has happened and my transaction is no longer valid? It's a mess.

Quote from: Trent Russell on November 29, 2015, 02:02:00 PM

This would likely be terrible for the price. It might push us below 0.001. (<- That's intended as dark humour. I have looked at the price today.)

It would reduce the price per CLAM, but everyone's CLAM holdings would be growing at the same pace (except for those who aren't staking, of course) so the market cap should stay about the same.

I doubt such a proposal would be successful, even though it's better than trying to reduce the initial reward in my opinion. Rich CLAM holders voting to make themselves richer isn't good from a PR angle...

then smooth responded like this:

Quote from: smooth on November 29, 2015, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: dooglus on November 29, 2015, 09:39:30 PM

Quote

1) We don't have to break any promises. "If you owned BTC you may already own CLAM!" stays true. The 4.6 per address that you "may already own!" stays there. We aren't accused of deleting people's property.

No, you will be accused of diluting people's property instead. Congratulations.

and that's about all the discussion of it I saw.

Quote from: DrkLvr_ on December 06, 2015, 05:42:12 PM

Not sure how this would work.. even though the supply is bigger any future whale diggers would be able to stake 10x as many coins

The point is that if you wait a year before digging up your CLAMs, you lose out on staking them for that year.

Increasing the staking reward increases the incentive to dig your CLAMs as soon as possible, which removes the uncertainty caused by the undug CLAMs hanging over us.

Economically, increasing the staking reward is very similar to decreasing the digging reward, but has the benefit that:

a) it is easier to implement

and

b) it doesn't involve removing coins that we already told people they "may already own"

Quote from: DrkLvr_ on December 06, 2015, 05:42:12 PM

Is there a cost associated with submitting a proposal? Maybe that will dissuade some of the half-baked ideas that will inevitably be proposed

There's no cost to submitting a proposal. But crappy ones hopefully won't get any attention or support.

Quote from: smooth on December 06, 2015, 05:47:51 PM

Someone whose coins aren't staking for just 24 hours out of a month will lose 1% value (coins are ineligible to stake for 4 hours after moving and can't be moved for 8 hours after staking). This will likely lead to increase concentration of ownership over time.

People should manage their wallets such that transacting with a portion of their coins doesn't affect the rest of their coins. The Just-Dice hot wallet transacts constantly, and yet is very able to continue staking at all times.

Quote from: P-Funk on December 06, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Increasing the stake reward to 10 clams/minute would probably have an averse affect on available clam supply at the market, which is pretty healthy right now. I expect many clams would be pulled off Poloniex (and make other lower volume markets even thinner) because they're not staking there. Right now it seems like not staking is acceptable, but if stake supply went up 10 times, holders wouldn't want to get diluted quickly.

This is probably true, but I don't see it as a bad thing for CLAMs to move away from venues which choose not to participate in staking.

Perhaps it would encourage Poloniex to really use CLAM as it was intended to be used and enable staking to help secure the coin and reduce the evil monopoly (TM) of that one dice site.

Quote from: gamblingbad on December 06, 2015, 06:21:51 PM

Quote from: SuperClam on December 06, 2015, 06:16:22 PM

I cry a bit when I think of all the CLAM stakes missed by those who have their CLAM in the Poloniex books Tongue

People get intrest, even higher then stake=P

They do, and that would presumably continue to be the case even if the staking reward increased. The lending market would have to adapt to keep up with the staking rate.