Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 232. (Read 1151373 times)

Ah, Ok. And I guess I agree. Just figured that if you were to dig what could have been $1 million worth of CLAM's, figuring out a way of doing so without crashing market price would be a priority.

Can have many reasons. Unexperienced in trading, fear of the chance going away, being an employee that has no clue and was told by the boss to sell all these clams. And so on.

I think the "help" part is arguably self-serving.

It didn't take "stupidity" to be revealed in his digging.
As I understand it, the client was set to conserve "age".
This caused the "youngest" outputs to be used first, and created the trail that was discovered.

Regardless, roasting him isn't going to help us move forward.

I don't see them as attacks, because I don't think he's stupid. I am just making the argument that the whole story kind of stinks. There are so much smarter ways to make a LOT of money from digging 10000s of addresses then the way that it's being done and almost none of them involves crashing price by 90%.

The attacks aren't helpful.

Do you have a recommendation or idea for the first census/petition, that doesn't include "I'm taking my toys and going home"?

Seems quite unlikely that you would be smart enough to dig 10.000s of addresses and at the same time be dumb enough to by 'mistake' reveal your address and 'unknowingly' create panic. Even a complete idiot could have dug slower over a long period or time, hid the digging and made 5x the BTC. And on the flipside, if you still wanted Clam to survive you could simply either dump all you have and reset the market or sell them all OTC. Since you are not, you are still actively pushing price down, or of course you are just breathtakingly stupid.

 , really i dont know which is the best way to take about this....

Well, I'm not mad at you.  I lost about 90% of my equity but that's just the way the market works.  I only wish you'd have tried to optimize your position a little better so the crash didn't happen so violently.  If you feel generous you can donate some back:  xPchKegaiAy2LBK3zX9bmBG8Xon2MPbfFj  It's all good though....that's capitalism!

Would be easy enough to request exchanges to freeze Clams, take a snapshot and simply BAN your clam address. Then hard fork it and instate digging parameters that kill future 'megadigger' attempts, or at least make them exceptionally hard.

I also find it exceptionally stupid of you to even try to argue that you are not out to put pressure on clam price, and then accelerate your digging and put up 250.000 sell order. Pretty sure by now that this was actually a well organized 'scam' where you found out about the planned Clam distribution and funded 10000s of Bitcoin addresses just to dig them. I hope Doog hard forks asap and ruins any future money making for you (not that you deserve the money you made so far either).

The primary purpose of this thread seems to be to create unecessary fear to induce the weak to dump.

As far as "fairest" goes, it seems relative. What are the options when you're launching a coin, is it essentially pre-mine, pre-seed, or everyone starts with 0 and it's a race to acquire? In a landscape littered with worthless alts, that last option isn't helpful because you can't attract an audience to yet another new coin if you don't stand out, so you need something that grabs attention and widely distributes from the start. Pre-seeding seems like a logical answer because pre-mined coins always carry the stigma of being pumpers for the developers, and pre-seeding at least gives you wide distribution in a more fair fashion. Naturally, the unintended consequences of that have arisen. Whether or not they could have been foreseen isn't very important to me, unless you're making the argument that the whale digger is also a developer, and manipulated the system for his own gain. The goal was wide distribution in as fair as possible a manner to give the coin a running start, and I would say it worked because it got Doog's attention and earned a place at JD, which is the only catalyst so far to give it actual value.

When thousands of individual diggers dug and sold their coins for the free btc, it was a "good thing" because it helped distribution, in spite of the fact that unwanted coins were being thrown into the market, which would suggest to me a flaw in the distribution model. But no one was protesting that then, or worried about coin inflation or the affect on price. But now we are, and it just happens to be because it's one guy who lucked out. Again, if you're making the argument he gamed the system, that's an entirely different issue. But if you're just upset by his dumb luck, that arbitrary double standard bothers me.



Doesn't follow logically. Someone might start, or someone might not. It's not a given, for one, and if the potential undug CLAMs didn't bother you 2 months ago, why do they bother you now? No one cared at all about all the potential undug CLAMs until they had to acknowledge the error in their thinking that no one would ever dig those CLAMs.

250k Undug by 1 Individual.... Holy Cow, like seriously I was lucky enough to get 9.2 CLAM !

Fair point. It should have been obvious that some people have more funded addresses than others.

Your context is pointless. No one would claim that selling would ever stop. Selling and buying will continue as long as the coin exists.

There is nothing happening now or in the future that wasn't reasonably foreseeable. If you don't like this coin, create a new one. It is not too late to do that.

No, it has always been known.

My point is that even though this particular digger claims to only have another 250k CLAMs to dump there's no reason to believe that's the end of the dumping. You took my quote out of context. I've re-added the context above.

This seems like a straw man. Maybe they thought it was the "fairest" way to do things but that seems somewhat implausible. Does "fairest" even exist?

More likely they thought it was a way to distribute coins to a very wide swath of the cryptocurrency community. I doubt seriously anyone believed that some participants with very large numbers of addresses wouldn't exist, but by distributing to every non-dust address that meant that at least some meaningful number of coins was being distributed to each of a huge number of participants.

If they did believe there wouldn't be people with many addresses, well I guess you can't deny stupidity.

I've seen this dynamic analysed in this thread long ago. I don't remember details, but it was being put forward as a positive thing: when the price rises new diggers are encouraged to dig and provide new supply, keeping a cap on the price. In this way the price is moderated and doesn't soar too high.

I guess the difference in this case is the sheer size of the wallet involved.

I find it hard to reason about the rights and wrongs in this case. The developers gave a fixed amount of CLAM to every funded BTC, LTC, DOGE address thinking that that was the fairest way of doing things. Now it turns out that it made for a very unfair distribution, and someone who (maybe) abused a bunch of faucets not only ended up bloating the BTC blockchain but also gets half a million dollars worth of free CLAM. How is that "fair"? Is it wrong to cancel digging because it's wrong to change the initial arbitrary rules? Or is it wrong to allow a single individual to benefit so hugely from his (possible) antisocial behaviour? I don't know.

And like he says, it's too late to do anything about it now. All we can do is decide what to do about the next such guy that turns up.

Yes of course there are. Was that information missing from the OP when you decided to support it?

I don't think necessarily it's the coming forward, but the other assertions he's made: this is his only wallet, he has no more CLAMs to dig after this, etc. That takes away one tiny unknown and gives us a better understanding of what this specific episode is about. Granted, you have to take him at his word, but that's no different than trusting any other screen name on this forum.


That was a pretty unreasonable price, if you ask me. CLAM was experiencing its own little bubble at the time fueled by the this buying can never backfire mentality that plagued bitcoin in 2013. If you're expecting it to get back to that price, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Are you BAC?  Or just an admirer?