Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 240. (Read 1151373 times)

It appears it is being left alone for the time being and all is well.

CreativeClam is going to make a proposal that the CLAM rich vote be worth more than the CLAM poor ppl in the community here soon.

Dooglus is back in his JD tinkering hole for the moment and no new coin from there it seems.  He is letting CreativeClam (superclam) take "control" of the project again since shes back. *shrugs*

Creative are you still prego?

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

I have no idea why there is resistance to this idea.  A future snapshot would bolster CLAM market and provide some resistance to short term dumps from digger.  And if people are worried that a future snapshot would lead to decline in CLAM price after snapshot, is that not infinitely preferable to the complete obliteration of CLAM price forever if adherence to a previous snapshot is announced (not to mention, the negative effect on trust this would have).  Ultimately, any short term dip in CLAM price after a future snapshot would not matter because everyone who owned CLAM would have the opportunity to either receive new token or exit CLAM at a higher price.

I have explained many times by now that the best way to create a new coin as a variant of an old coin^* is to set the cutoff date well in the future, and shortly before the actual launch of the second network (theoretically at the same time but practically a short interval might be preferable).

Anyone buying CLAM before the launch of the other coin would also receive the new coin, so there is no loss of trust or value. Regardless of which coin thrives (or if by chance both do), anyone who bought in before the split would receive the same value.

This approach is economically the same as forking the chain with an update, without the technical risks associated with transactions that are portable between forks. The trade off is some extra effort needed to get buy in from exchanges and other participants to handle the split correctly, but this largely substitutes for the effort necessary to get consistent upgrades across the entire network for a fork. So in the end, especially for a smaller coin with only one exchange and a few sites, the extra effort seems small.

Once the new coin does exist, then both would trade independently and people can buy whichever one they like (or both or neither).

Of course, I've also said that anyone can create any coin at any time, or for that matter fork code and create update clients that fork the existing network if they want (as long as they can get people to use their code). So following my proposed procedure is not and can't be made mandatory. It just has the least negative effects all around.

^* Except when it is clear that virtually everyone prefers the variant in which case it is perfectly fine to make the change "in place" on the existing network.

All coins are experimental to one degree or another. All of crypto currency in fact is a giant experiment and the outcome still hasn't been decided from what I can tell.

Bitcoin, the least experimental of any coin at this point still has major debates about changing things that would effect the protocol and potentially the users of the network in unforeseen ways. If that doesn't scream experimental I don't know what does.

We all signed up to be part of the experiment when we became interested in crypto currency. Thats my opinion at least.

How about an updated chart of this digging activity?

Cryptocurrency in general is experimental, even Bitcoin, possible we have in some years another leading cryptocurrency or not, who knows.


the question is not, if the coin can be altered or not, the main question would be in what way, by the community or the creators of the coin.


actually i feel quite infected by your strong believe nothing should be changed and all is set in stone..



Hope you feel better soon...

PS: Greet your buddy, lets call him Avaman..

Ah, I see. Interesting.

Thanks for the data.

Pablo.

The short version: Someone with access to a great many CLAM-seeded addresses has been digging up a lot of new CLAMs and releasing them into the market. The sudden flood of CLAMs has pushed the price of CLAM very low. People are now debating what, if anything, to do about this.

See Doog's chart below for a visual representation of what is happening. The appearance of the "whale digger" is the cause of concern.

Hey Guys,
    Is there a White Paper I can take a look at anywhere?

TL/DR: Whats this "Digger" issue?

Thanks,
  Pablo.

This discussion can move on for months and nothing ll be done about it. It s so simple. Digging is the main issue. Let Clam users vote, if majority of addresses votes for abolishing of digging, fork the coin and do it. If not, do whatever majority wants. I repeat, if CLAM is designed to server the digger and few selected users, then the community needs to know this so we can move on into something else. Pls stop offering complicated solutions which need 3 years to get implemented. The coin 3/4 of its value since the digger emerged so it s clear, he or they are the biggest problem. So, solve the problem, do not be afraid to say this digging model does not work as it should. The most simple solution is often the best one.

I am going to steal this.



CC, somebody in JD chat has repeatedly stated that this coin is experimental.  Due to this, he, let's call him Uck for the time being, the experiment can be changed at any time and therefore rules such as digging or staking can be altered for the sake of improvement.  What is your position on the experimental nature Clams?  Were the people who sunk $1000's into the coin aware of this?  How do you feel about changing an experiment mid-stream because you don't like the outcome?  This is assuming of course that the hypothesis is along the lines introducing a digital currency as a means of exchange and not technical.  Should we get into a discussion of his fallacy that any change is good or an improvement.  Unfortunately, his line of thinking has infected even hard sciences as publish or perish rules and the rankings game persist.

I would write more but pain has returned.

This conversation has been quite muddled with people advocating for a very broad range of things, and I'm a bit lost. Where do we stand currently? Are we determining the best way to have a vote or solicit feedback from the community, or are we still determining the merits of even having a vote?

It really is hard to know where this road goes but i have to agree that the coin that JD uses will be the more profitable (i know there is a chance that both will be used, but have a feeling most would move into only "Doog's" coin) and so many of the investors would abandon CLAM. I really hope there is a good solution to the issue.

totaly agree.

i like CLAM, i have some, but already price down nearly %50 last month. i'm still wait, if this continue, i will sell my coin and switch another, and i believe too many people thinking like me.
if you release new coin, you lost maybe half of clam user. After that who invest new coin, you and some people? i think too low change for new investor and new community.
Because everywhere coin, like coin trash, why i trust any new coin from this time.

sorry for bad language.

  

I tend to agree with this. If the whole problem with the coin is a super-digger, then there isn't really a problem at all.
Whatever happens, it needs to be done soon.  Why would someone buy now when they might end up with CLAMS alone, whereas other holders will have CLAMs + Doogs

There is little incentive to buy with so much uncertainty around the future of CLAMS.  Essentially whichever coin JD uses will be the coin of value, so I would back Dooglus generally.  If he wants to limit digging, then I would rather that to a new coin.

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

Hi. I´m not very active here, but there goes my opinion.
Me, as much of the people, don´t like to have to trust in a new coin. It´s very difficult event hold my clams and don´t sell.
I won´t like at all if I have to burn Clams for another currency, that we don´t know if will be trustable.
In the other side, if this new coin "takes the screenshot" of the Clam blockchain and "gift" the coins to all Clam users it will be ok, but, if we already have people that sod theys Clams becausse there get them free, will happend the same in this new coin?
Saludos.

Pardon the delayed response ..

You must be a narcissistic basket case if you expect us to believe that you and/or whoever cloned this shit, was able to resist salting the snapshot with thousands of your cryptofiat addresses.

Are you and/or SuperClam the evil digger ?

You and your sock/shill parade will soon be exposed.

Do it.