Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 200. (Read 1151369 times)

it would be ok with me if every year the digging reward decreased until in 5 years it was zero

so this year is 1 to 1
next year is .8 to 1

etc

If digging had been scheduled to stop and I found out after the deadline, I would be disappointed but that's life. If I wanted some I might still buy some.

If I found out that there was originally no deadline but a bunch of cry baby bag holders forked the coin to steal my CLAMs, I would feel scammed and I'd never go near it.

Why has the volume been so high recently? Where did that volatility come from?

Because of the digger, that's why.

I doubt it will turn out this way, but even if most digs in the future are people lucking into whale digs, that still brings interest, excitement, publicity, and vitality. Like someone finding a cache of gold coins in their grandmother's basement.

You seem to want stability and low volatility and being free of the risk of whale digs, but that is absolutely the worst thing for an altcoin to have these days. It is death.

Hi!

What about not removing digging, but just spread digging into next few years.
Something like allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
I.e. For X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 17
...
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.

What do you think?

EDIT:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/new-law-no-more-than-850-gold-mining-dredges-allow/

How many people first heard about CLAMs, then dug their own, then bought more and now are holders/stakers?  Why do we want to stop that from happening in the future?

If you have a few old addresses, then heard about CLAM just after the digging was stopped, would you then buy CLAMs, or just forget about it?

Finally we are talking about this! This is really one though issue . On one hand I would like to ease up or end digging but on the other I fell in love with clam due to how interesting and innovative the digging part was.  So as I see it now something like halving or pointing out date in future when we will end the digging, to get people still chance to dig out their clams, would be probably the most rational thing to do.  I mean giving 2 or 3 years for "initial distribution" is quite enough time and as someone mentioned before the snapshot is getting old slowly and the number of average diggers (small ones) will go down rapidly so it kinda loses a purpose (not literally)

I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of interest drawn to CLAM when it's regularly in the top three traded coins by volume at poloniex.

The recent volatility is something day traders seem to love.


Bitcoin says something like that every 4 years only instead of stopping block rewards they halve them. Bitcoin needs block rewards because without them almost nobody would run mining hardware. Without block rewards the network would be easy to attack. Digging doesn't benefit CLAM's security at all, and in fact is a threat to security if a big enough cache of undug CLAMs is dug by a single entity.


I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Right. About a week ago some newbie in the poloniex trollbox was asking why CLAMs was created to "reward only the early adopters of crypto", because you need to have be into crypt 18 months ago to qualify for free CLAM.

It amused me, because obviously at the time of release the snapshot was recent, but it is becoming increasingly "early adopters and old services only" as time goes on.

When I am Clamperor For Life (vote 7a69a853, you know you want to) you can be my second in command, webchris.

I don't think stopping digging is the same as ending block rewards. First of all, block rewards perform a vital function which keeps Bitcoin and the Blockchain going. The CLAM distribution, initially, and even very recently as SuperClam pointed out, has been an aid to the CLAM market, but has very recently become a negative feature - maybe more similar to the Bitcoin blocksize debate.




I agree completely. It is very hard to know. I just think the distribution date (while genius at the time) now looks so arbitrary, and that can be a turnoff to newcomers. I feel like if the distribution was designed today, there would be strong arguments to make it have a limited number of blocks. Perhaps something like the reward for undug CLAM halving every X blocks until phasing out.

Even if we do not stop digging next week, or next month. I would love to see something that puts an end to digging at some point in the future. Even if it were a year from now. That would give plenty of time to get the word out, evangelize, then let CLAM be free of the uncertainty.

I have no idea what that website meant, but maybe my brain turned off a few hours ago.

I find it interesting nobody had anything to say to may argument AGAINST ending digging... everybody just waited a couple of pages and then trotted out the specter again and started arguing in favor of ending digging. It is really starting to reek of profiteering. "I got mine!"

Dig them up and place your vote!

Wanna bet 1 BTC that I dont have undug clams?

 http://casascius.uberbills.com  look at all these undug coins .

I bet if we hit $2000 acoin they will be open and more clams will be dug.

Data?  Source?


Again, source?


This is true - it is impossible to know.


'Every time' - there has never been a digger as large as 'curious'.


I think you are correct in stating that the argument of the 'digs' as outreach will lose persuasiveness as time moves forward.
It is very difficult, however, to quantify how many new users are 'diggers' and how many are 'purchasers', or both.

In the past, increases in digging (with the exception of 'curious') have appeared to be beneficial to CLAM, including in the market.

More importantly, I think the argument that ending digs has property/blacklist implications is a more persuasive argument.

In the end, we will have to see if there is a large consensus of support around any change, before that change takes place.

   Your assuming there are large caches of Keys.  And your assuming the regular users are now non-existent.  Nobody knows, so you could flip your statements around and be just as correct.   

I would agree that more people joining clam are buying and not digging, but I would argue that most clams are being bought by people already in clam and not a whole new group. 

   The initial distribution of clams was to holders of BTC, LTC and Doge.  To stop digging, is about the same as bitcoin saying, we're going to end the block rewards, there are enough bitcoins out there and the miners are just dumping them and lowering the price. 

    And yes I have a nice little cache of clams.       

The argument I am making is the digger who is an avg BTC/LTC/Doge holder who happens to hear about CLAM for the first time is becoming less and less common. The undug CLAMs are increasingly in large undiscovered or lost caches of keys - controlled by individuals (like people who ran services, casinos, exchanges, bots, etc.). And people don't point out enough (that I've seen anyway) that lost coins sit in this large cloud as well, yet we can never know how many have been lost to the ages. Every time a digger shows up as large as curious (or heaven forbid, larger), we will all pull out these charts showing how huge this undug supply is and remind us of this problem.

I think a lot of people who are thinking about the future diggers like to think of it as a great outreach of CLAM. But I think avg people joining CLAM are not new diggers, but buyers. People who have been evangelized not by the initial distribution, but what the coin and community offer today.

In fairness, you can't make both arguments.

The digs can't, on one hand, be steadily declining and barely anyone has any to claim.
And, on the other hand, be an existential threat or "cloud" hanging over the network.

Not sure if troll or what, but feel free to dig up your coins at any time. No one has changed anything about digging and if you do have undug clams (which I highly doubt) then you should be concerned as the rest of us about the future of this currency and get educated on the issues.

I hear this argument all the time, and it is the most puzzling thing to me.

Why can't cryptocurrencies change and adapt? Are we saying this amazing technology is limited by the first thought of the first developers? I'm not saying the developers were wrong. I think the distribution of CLAM was probably the most fair way to distribute a cryptocurrency. But I think had they a chance to do it over, I would imagine it would be tweaked to avoid the problems we have today.

I get that it certainly seems unfair that people who own the currency now would change the rules that affect future owners. And I sympathize with that logic, but I think it's flawed. Who are the future owners of CLAM? Are they "buyers" or diggers? When someone heard about clam 6-8 months ago and asked about it, you could tell them they probably already had some! But now with so many people entering crypto (and with so many having left before), what would that look like? If you tell 100 random BTC/doge/LTC owners today about Clam, how many would have undug clams? I would love to know this number. Whatever it is, I bet it has been dropping steadily every day. Basically, the desired effect of distributing clams fairly to people who have other crypto was accomplished, but now is no longer an effective tool. Undug clams are either lost, or they are cached in large collections of addresses controlled by individuals who haven't realized it yet. And once they do, we have more whale diggers with a huge supply and no interest in holding clams.

Having this super massive cloud of clams that could start pouring into the market at any time hurts holders now, and it will continue to weigh on holders and buyers. Acknowledging the distribution "worked" and checking it off as complete (by limiting or ending future digging at some point), you remove all that uncertainty.

If you don't agree with a specific CLAMour petition, put your CLAM to work staking, don't list it in the stakes as a petition you support, and you will make it less likely to reach consensus.

I am I have caucius coins and for every 1 I have 4.6 clams and you are treating to take my clams away from me.

It was described as fairest coin out there but looks like a ploy to protect a fews wealth will transferrign it to bitcoins now