Thanks for the level-headed responses smooth. When I look at the digging/staking graphs dooglus put up periodically, there seems to be a big difference pre and post lottery. But that's probably because the lottery coins are not reflected, i'm not sure.
I had a realization.. a major worry of mine was future big(ger) diggers.. however the more time that passes, the less digs are worth due to the 500k coins issued yearly through staking. This is a great thing. So while it's true that many won't agree on how best to proceed, i think what will most likely happen is nothing at all.. and that might not be such a bad thing after all.
Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 242. (Read 1151373 times)
November 16, 2015, 05:10:20 PM
November 16, 2015, 04:13:28 PM
But this equilibrium that you cite in your example isn't what is happening. The whale digger is obfuscating the inflationary effect by introducing non-recurring inflation on a much larger scale.
There is no "inflation" being introduced by the digger. All of those CLAMs already exist on the blockchain, and the fixed (other than staking rewards) supply number is listed on the OP. It hasn't changed.
The only thing that happened here is that investors had an incorrect view of how many of the undug CLAMs would be dug, and/or when they would be dug. That view is being reevaluated and with that reevaluation the price is adjusting accordingly.
That and perhaps all this discussion about wiping out peoples CLAMs has spooked the market and increased the likelihood that the community will fall apart and the coin will fail altogether. I don't know to what extent that is a driving the price action, but it is certainly consistent with it.
Quote
If the economy (utility) of CLAM doesn't grow as fast as staking inflation
If the economy of CLAM doesn't grow a lot the whole thing is stupid. Most of the active supply is in the JD bankroll. A (supposedly) decentralized cryptocurrency used to largely support a single site, being secured using proof-of-stake where nearly all of the stake is under the control of one individual is pointless nonsense.
The only good reason to support this project is in the hope that its economy does grow to where this currently-pointless nonsense is in the past.
November 16, 2015, 04:02:27 PM
I see a lot of naive idealism in here... the lottery was initially in CLAMS... is CLAMS now tainted forever since the lottery didn't work out and the rules were changed? What happened to "set in stone" in that case?
CLAMS is in an adapt or die situation, and the amount of cheering i see going on for what is essentially an "i'm willing to go down with this ship" mentality is astonishing.
CLAMS is in an adapt or die situation, and the amount of cheering i see going on for what is essentially an "i'm willing to go down with this ship" mentality is astonishing.
The idealism isn't naive if it is the only thing that gives something potential value. Yet another politically manipulated economic system is really quite worthless when the world is full of them already.
I'm not sure why you think going "down with the ship" is a certainty here at all. Many have expressed the view that CLAM will survive the digger and ultimately thrive. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that. I don't even have a view on whether it will survive or not (though ultimately I believe most coins won't so we may be disagreeing only on the path to failure, not the eventual destination). I do believe that if it survives without manipulation it will be worth far more than if it survives with manipulation.
As for the lottery, as I understand it, the rate of staking (per day, per week, etc.) was essentially unchanged in eliminating the lottery. I may be wrong about that as I haven't checked the math, so if I am wrong, please correct me. That is enormously different from the idea of wiping out or significantly impairing 95% of the supply. Furthermore there is no "bug" or "expliot" having to do with digging that would motivate a fix. It is working exactly as designed.
November 16, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
yep it is not like it was the first yet another alt crypto dying here, next.
November 16, 2015, 03:54:01 PM
CLAMS is in an adapt or die situation, and the amount of cheering i see going on for what is essentially an "i'm willing to go down with this ship" mentality is astonishing.
November 16, 2015, 03:35:50 PM
Well, I hope clam stays as it is. I understand that the digger is ruining the value, but it can't last forever. Too much supply too soon was a reality. Sadly, the digger is damaging their own value holdings, maybe he/she doesn't care, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. It's possible that clam may not survive this, but I'm still looking forward to the new client with the "voting" via clamspeech and whatnot.
Let us not allow the tragedy of the commons become the tyranny of the commons.
“the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” -John Adams
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive when the community is not composed entirely of individuals possessing both freedom of thought, and truth of spirit. Such traits exist in a shocking minority in these times. This is the main issue here, and it has troubled me deeply since this matter arose. Navaman is right, but I cannot say why. The teachings of the Church of Reason elude me these days. I am convinced that this is the problem, but I can offer no solution. Even the Bastion of Liberty -- The great Constitutional Republic -- has proven to only be a stop-gap measure. I have no answers, but I do know that we must be very cautious here -- we are playing with things far greater than ourselves.
There is a solution. Don't make changes to the fundamental economic properties. Treat a coin as an experiment where these rules are "set in stone" to quote Satoshi, not subject to the whims of a potentially-tyranical (sort of) majority. If the rules turn out to be bad rules, the experiment fails and the lessons of that failure can live on in a new coin (presumably with somewhat different rules). This is messy perhaps, but less messy than all the other alternatives.
That's the whole damn (important) thing that Satoshi invented as an alternative to a politically-manipulated economy. It is very underappreciated apparently.
November 16, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
If I have any say to this, I would let clam be clam and not do anything, its unfortunate someone has that much clams but if we can survive that we can survive anything. And he is selling all of them anyway if I understand it correctly so nothing 51%-esque is going to happen.
November 16, 2015, 03:19:02 PM
Well, I hope clam stays as it is. I understand that the digger is ruining the value, but it can't last forever. Too much supply too soon was a reality. Sadly, the digger is damaging their own value holdings, maybe he/she doesn't care, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. It's possible that clam may not survive this, but I'm still looking forward to the new client with the "voting" via clamspeech and whatnot.
Let us not allow the tragedy of the commons become the tyranny of the commons.
“the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” -John Adams
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive when the community is not composed entirely of individuals possessing both freedom of thought, and truth of spirit. Such traits exist in a shocking minority in these times. This is the main issue here, and it has troubled me deeply since this matter arose. Navaman is right, but I cannot say why. The teachings of the Church of Reason elude me these days. I am convinced that this is the problem, but I can offer no solution. Even the Bastion of Liberty -- The great Constitutional Republic -- has proven to only be a stop-gap measure. I have no answers, but I do know that we must be very cautious here -- we are playing with things far greater than ourselves.
November 16, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
It's not value destruction as long as the economy is growing with the money supply,
You can say it's not value destruction, but it's all least value transfer. My $1000 that I saved last year won't buy as much now as it would then. The value I have lost maybe now exists in the pocket of some government employee or central banker, so OK it wasn't destroyed. But I no longer control it.
Fiat (and Bitcoin) inflation devalues saver holdings to the benefit of the people who get the newly created money.
unless those sites grow their gambling base at the same rate as CLAM inflation, isn't inflation devaluing the coin?
No. It devalues each unit of the coin, but each (staking) holder gains units to compensate for that devaluation, resulting in 0% net value loss.
Perhaps CLAMs' ultimate weakness is its low utility. You just can't do much with it. Unless a (more robust) economy springs up around the coin, the current inflation rate is bound to devalue it relative to other currencies.
Suppose you have 100 CLAM and the price is 0.01 BTC per CLAM. You have 1 BTC worth of CLAM.
Suppose staking doubles your holding each year and halves the price each year.
By the end of the year, you'll have 200 CLAM and the price is 0.05 BTC per CLAM. You still have 1 BTC worth of CLAM.
You can cry that the price of CLAM in BTC has halved, but who cares? You still have 1 BTC worth of it, so it doesn't matter.
The only person complain is the guy who didn't bother staking for that year. He still has 100 CLAM, but now it's only worth 0.5 BTC. That's the incentive to stake.
But this equilibrium that you cite in your example isn't what is happening. The whale digger is obfuscating the inflationary effect by introducing non-recurring inflation on a much larger scale. If he didn't exist, you would still see a falling CLAM price over long periods of time because you can't do much with CLAM except gamble and stake, so to realize any benefit of holding CLAMs you eventually have to cash out. The exchange rate of CLAM to USD or BTC is set by people who are buying CLAM, either to initiate a position or increase their holdings, and the more CLAMs that exist when they do, the less each has to be worth. So while your staking income preserves your share of the existing CLAM base within the system, that doesn't mean it preserves the btc value you put into it.
If the economy (utility) of CLAM doesn't grow as fast as staking inflation, the exchange rate between CLAM and USD falls faster than your staking income, despite the fact that your staking income preserves your share of the existing CLAM base.
November 16, 2015, 03:10:17 PM
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin? I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change. If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change. He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.
I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention. What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after. I hope that clarifies. Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case. I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).
That's cool, But I don't think we're going to get many comments from folks that haven't dug their clams yet. I believe I saw one comment from someone with a few un-dug clams, but I would say the vast majority of un-dug clams are held by people that either lost the private key, or have not heard of clams.
Indeed. But (almost) all of us were in that situation at some point---possessing undug CLAMs, most likely unaware of their existence. It's literally these folks, people who were given clams in the initial distribution who have not dug them yet, who are potentially harmed by rule changes. And yet, as you say, they aren't really here to speak up for themselves.
November 16, 2015, 02:46:26 PM
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin? I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change. If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change. He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.
I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention. What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after. I hope that clarifies. Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case. I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).
That's cool, But I don't think we're going to get many comments from folks that haven't dug their clams yet. I believe I saw one comment from someone with a few un-dug clams, but I would say the vast majority of un-dug clams are held by people that either lost the private key, or have not heard of clams.
November 16, 2015, 02:27:38 PM
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin? I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change. If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change. He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.
I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention. What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after. I hope that clarifies. Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case. I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).
November 16, 2015, 02:24:31 PM
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin? I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change. If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change. He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.
November 16, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
Clam is one of the best coins in my opinion. Right now the economics suggest a good time to pick up more in my opinion.
November 16, 2015, 02:17:39 PM
Time to short this one coin 
That is a long time I haven't seen a self imploding one.
That is a long time I haven't seen a self imploding one.
November 16, 2015, 01:55:17 PM
Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.
100% of your statistics are bullshitSecond cryptosprout.
REALLY? You are saying that you are against something that would flush your scammy side business down the drain? No, say it ain't so
November 16, 2015, 01:53:27 PM
Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.
100% of your statistics are bullshitOh noes, a child online called my math bad
November 16, 2015, 01:48:43 PM
So, If i understand correctly the mess here and sorry if I am only a neophyte here,
The main selling point was :
The fair distribution with the (smart) proof of blockchain.
And the investors on exchanges rewarded the principle with a decent value taking into account that many wouldn't claim their clam
But then some reknown member, suddenly, by fear of people selling on the same markets, think that they may discard the underlying fair distribution model , create another coin with a different distribution model and is hoping it is going to have as much value ? No, just no, the another coin will just be yet another crap.
Also, people are concerned that people hoard coins or claim their clam as per the blockchain "fair" distribution ,... meh... wasn't it the point (risky) that was making the value of it ? Aren't you chasing fairies here ?
Sound like the insiders are shooting at themselves.
Forking is ok. Forking yourselfs raises questions
The main selling point was :
The fair distribution with the (smart) proof of blockchain.
And the investors on exchanges rewarded the principle with a decent value taking into account that many wouldn't claim their clam
But then some reknown member, suddenly, by fear of people selling on the same markets, think that they may discard the underlying fair distribution model , create another coin with a different distribution model and is hoping it is going to have as much value ? No, just no, the another coin will just be yet another crap.
Also, people are concerned that people hoard coins or claim their clam as per the blockchain "fair" distribution ,... meh... wasn't it the point (risky) that was making the value of it ? Aren't you chasing fairies here ?
Sound like the insiders are shooting at themselves.
Forking is ok. Forking yourselfs raises questions
November 16, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
November 16, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
I don't leave this in a pretty place as it is quite obvious that many of the decisions will be wrong. The public is ignorant and rent seekers just as much as Wall Street. The economic experts really have a degree in applied math and need never open an introductory book, take economics 101 or ever have held an actual job outside of the PhD qualifacated ones. So, the fewer decisions and changes that are made to the basic structure the better is my advice. If you are going to make fundamental changes, besides expropriating clams, they should be done now before the economic infrastructure gets built around Clams.
That is all.
So, to paraphrase, the public is ignorant, economic experts don't understand economics, and PhD's are useless. That's an awful lot of angst. Go take a spin class or something is my advice.
Jump to: