Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 243. (Read 1151373 times)

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.

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.

Last nigh, in JD chat, I had a discussion precisely on this issue.  The position of the other party is that owning a digital coin is not really owning it and certainly not private property.  Plus, these are experimental and change is necessary.  My question is what is the status of the holders of this digital currency?  Most importantly, what is the ownership status of the people who have yet to dig their clams?  

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.  

One other item that is irritating, I think CC takes economics issues surrounding the emergence of a digital currency seriously as it is clear she paid attention in her economic classes.  It is quite obvious that a substantial number of participants didn't and are, by and large, ignorant of finance and monetary issues.  Like the person mentioned above who doesn't think that owning a digital currency is private property, many seem oblivious to the trust needed in managing the money supply.  For those that haven't figured it out yet, the blockchain based financial system is looking more and more like the fiat based one most despise.  There is no reason to reinvent the wheel and the same issues that plague fiat will come to digital.  It is only a matter of time.  Silicon Valley has promised a revolution in finance several times now but what we have seen is new technology fit into the old infrastructure to make it more productive.  This is not to say some PhD will have a better ability to make decisions and experiments have shown that academics aren't really experts as they have less predictive power than randomness or Bubbles the chimp.  I would have greatly preferred Bubbles to Ben Bernanke as the former pretty clearly has a better head on his shoulders. What we need is people who have a good mental model and understand that emotions are part of them not the ignorance and ruled by emotion that is driving this.  (The above comment is directed at a substantial minority, perhaps a plurality, but it is quite obvious fairly quick who has an understanding of economics, those who at least have the right mental model and those who have no idea.)

Another issue I have is why this is an issue at all.  Dooglus said he was just responding to the people in the thread which is fine.  However, keep in mind that many of us and probably a good majority has repeatedly asked the simple question what is the problem or crisis?  It isn't very helpful to write "nothing" in a post and that's about sums up my attitude towards this.  If writing wasn't a painful exercise, I would have written more and perhaps will address some issues in the future.  One thing I will say right now is that there are a lot financial crisis which are of the subset of currency related.  They happen all the time and yet there isn't a problem and there ends up being no real crisis at all.  These are ignored by academics and thrown out but one of prominent methods to ascertain if a crisis is happening has a lot of false signals.  Besides, a large move down, what is the issue?  On the other hand, it is popular among certain people to claim there was no financial crisis between the enactment of Glass-Steagall which is in fact wrong.  There are several during the 65 year period.  One is the Latin American debt crisis in which Brady Bonds were issued.  Another is the S&L crisis that took a few hundred billion to clean up.  You could say that Bretton Woods collapse was a currency crisis.  There was a subprime crisis a decade before this past one in the late 90's.  I'm sure I can come up with a few more if i go through my notes and look up a few data sets.  Once again, there are a few who can understand what I just wrote but how many here have their eyes glaze over.  Final question, how does our to do compare to any of the fiat crisis we have experienced in recent years?

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 you're saying basically that, no matter what, you're against it. 

Second cryptosprout.

100% of your statistics are bullshit

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

Dosent matter what the vote is. What matter is if JD will only use clam.

This message was too old and has been purged

You are under-estimating the ability for humans to reach consensus.
If there was a situation with contention, users have a vested interest in verifying and agreeing with the majority chain.
This creates a very powerful incentive to update.

Of course, the minority could choose to continue running incompatible software.
They would, essentially, be on their own network.
Ideally, the other major parties (such as services and exchanges) agree with the change; but, in the end an exchange client has no value if it refuses to verify the transactions of the economic majority.

Communication would prevent the network from getting to that point, but for illustration:
When faced with one support request for fork A, and 50 support requests for fork B.... The choice is quite clear.

How do you think new network protocol rules are implemented during a fork?
By definition, majority stakeholders control the chain.

---

That said, there is no covert plan to do anything at the moment except allow the community to make their own decision.
Then, if a decision for change is made, there is development, evangelism at the various services/exchanges for adoption, update and eventually a change to the network protocol.

You, nor I, have to agree.
In the case of a fork, that which represents the majority, and thus is the most useful, will undoubtedly be adopted.

---

Regardless, you are jumping ahead of the starting line.
First, the community gets a provable voice.

This is largely incorrect, and if you are operating under this misunderstanding you will eventually break the coin and destroy its value entirely.

You can not have any significant minority running an incompatible client or you will have transactions that confirm on either or both chains and it will never be possible to agree who owns which coins. The coin will be entirely destroyed.

A majority of network stakeholders is useless for determining the network rules. You must have either near-unanimity on the rules, or any disagreements must be resolved by creating a new coin on a separate network.

I can't argue against the idea of conducting polls, as that is just free speech, but if your idea is to deploy a contentious change to the system (and taking away coins away from people who own them will certainly be contentious whether voted for or not) on the basis of a majority vote, then you are misguided.

This message was too old and has been purged

OK, more decentralized approach with voting...like it.

As I understand it, the intention is to set up a provably fair user UI at JD.
Find the proportion of various options, roll a dice to select based on that proportion.

except that wouldn't work you can only set one clam speech per stake, the idea of a pooled stake is that everyone's coins are combined (everyone's opinion would also be combined) however because doog does have control of the coins technically he has the ability to control the vote of those staked coins.

I think most coins are the investors money in JD, not doog's personal money. There should be a vote option in JD.

why not just let dooglus decide then? as he owns the largest staking pool and will win the vote regardless? unless I am missing something.

Thanks BAC

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9772191

I would also like a recent bootstrap if anyone has one.