Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 249. (Read 1151373 times)

I announced that I had taken the snapshot as soon as the snapshot was taken.

Anyone buying after that either knew about it or didn't care enough to keep up with this thread or the JD chat.

It seems to me that we're never going to reach agreement on how best to proceed. I don't know what else to try. Taking a vote is unpopular. Making a new coin is unpopular. Leaving things unchanged is unpopular. It seems that no matter what I suggest I'm the bad guy.

I would just say "fuck it" and leave things how they are - but then someone will accuse me of being the digger and say that this whole conversation was planned to arrive at that conclusion. So I just don't know what to do for the best.

This message was too old and has been purged

The digger could easily have additional wallets. It's all well and good (security-wise) now that he's dumping slowly,. but what if this person is a nefarious actor and hates CLAMS ?  The coin is already down from 0.013 to 0.0013 now - an entire order of magnitude, and the digger is only 30% done on the current wallet. What if, once he's dumped into 99% of the buy support, he digs the next 1 or more wallets all at once - and even JD can't compete to secure the network. Is that a risk you're willing to take?

If you deposited your coins after block 730k, then you would have newcoins in your local wallet (since that's where they were as of block 730k).

If you deposited your coins before block 730k, then your newcoins would be in Poloniex's wallet (since that's where they were as of block 730k).

It's just an idea: since some people want the rules unchanged and others want them changed, how about a new coin with changed rules and the old coin with unchanged rules. Then everyone can use the coin they prefer. Or both.

I was thinking I'd just take a snapshot at some point in time and have the new coin start with the same amounts in each address as in the old coin at that point in time. So Poloniex would have the same number of newcoins as they had CLAMs in block 730k.

It's hard to respond to such fuzzy accusations. Are you referring to my sanity here? Is this just meant as an ad hominem attack or do you have anything of substance to say?


I don't understand what my beliefs have to do with anything. Digging is continuing, so I don't know why you say "dig pressure is gone". And what do stakes eat? None of what you are saying really makes any sense.


I proposed having a vote, but it was an unpopular idea because the people who didn't dig their CLAMs yet wouldn't have a voice. I can see the logic in that.

I didn't see any numbers "turn out" because we didn't have the vote yet. I expect if we did then the majority would be in favour of stopping or at least decreasing digging rewards, but that's just my guess.


I don't just think I can make a new coin, I know I can. The question is whether it's the right thing to do. That's why we're having this discussion. To try to decide what the correct course of action would be.

What do you think would the right think to do?

I guess you think the right thing to do would be whatever allows you to make as much money as possible from clamchecker, and screw everyone else. Am I close?


No, he's not.

Doog's like "hey, this is a tough situation with lots of divergent thoughts; let's brainstorm and try to find a solution to it".

What an asshole, eh?

   Can you explain further the security threat the digger exposed?  Also go back to the first 6 pages, and you'll see the exposure to a "big digger" was known then.  It was part of the risk.

   I "personally" still don't see a problem with the digger.  If there were no other outside influences on clams, the digger was quite happy slowly dumping his coins on the market.  He also reacted, when something outside his control caused clams to dump.  This made the problem exponentially worse.   But in any market based systems changes are going  to happen.  

   I won't switch to the new version.  I'll still support CLAMS.  But, I also may play with the new coin.  I was a CLAMS supporter long before JD and I'll be one till the end.  I may end up a crazy clams bagholder, but if that's the worse thing you can say about me, I'm OK with it.  

      

Actually, the best way to fork, I mean fuck, .. I mean fork the whales (namely SuperClam and Dooglus), would be to push the snapshot back 4-5 months. This will put the kabosh on their easy/instamine, if they did salt the blockchain with hundreds of thier addys during the time leading up to launch.

Name:    SuperClam
Date Registered:    April 26, 2014, 01:38:20 AM

CLAM snapshot : May 12, 2014

Is there anyway to prove if these giant diggers are single wallets with dozens of valid addys ?

How many addresses does each BTC, LTC and/or DOGE wallet.dat hold again ?

No, that's not right. You get the CLAMs that you bought.


The CLAM chain isn't being abandoned.


I took a snapshot without announcing it precisely to prevent anyone taking advantage of any "insider knowledge" in the event that we do decide to make a new coin. Remember when CLAM took its snapshot of the BTC chain? It wasn't announced in advance, or people would have taken advantage of that knowledge to end up with extra CLAMs from the initial distribution.

I didn't stock up on CLAM before the snapshot either. Trading looked entirely normal before I took the snapshot.

The sooner changes are made the sooner people will begin supporting this coin again (or rather the next iteration of it). Like I said before, CLAM is an experimental altcoin currency. The distribution model was experimental, and maybe things that should have been identified when the decision was originally made, weren't.

The 'digger threat' is real, for a variety of reasons, security-wise and financially. This should be obvious by now with all of the valid arguments that have been brought up. This could have been acted on in a similar fashion to the lottery threat. Funny how no one was opposed to a change then, yet now all of sudden the thread is littered with idealists and everything about CLAMS is sacrosanct.

The most ridiculous part of this is if/when doog makes his changes, 90% of the people who are totally opposed to making any changes will switch to his version of the coin since it will be the only one with any value remaining.

Someone keeps dumping this coin. Unless there is some revolutionary technology behind this coin, the digger will continue dumping their coins and CLAMS will have very low value.

I admit using the term swap was poor judgement I do know the people will hold both coins but is it fair to say this is just an idea? you have already taken a snapshot, you had mention a new coin weeks ago in JD chat "cloogs". It seems to me its more than just an idea you seem well prepared to execute. It does not bother me either way as free coins always fit in my business model perfectly but I can't imagine the average investor being thrilled about the idea.

Die clam die

 

This is precisely why retrospectively choosing a snapshot block is unfair.

Clam was built on a fair and unique distribution model, it is unlikely that any fork which isn't perceived as equally fair will achieve anything like the same levels of success.

If a fork is necessary (I personally think it is not), setting snapshot at future block is the only fair way.  

See this is what's wrong with the altcoins in general....too many ways for them to be attacked by centralizing bodies...pumpers and dumpers...51% 'ers changing rules....You know what...I bought a bunch of clam at 0.0113, put them up to collect interest on POLO and not more than a couple hours later the price started plummeting because of some "secret digger"....lost 75% of my holding.  I bought some earlier and the same thing happened....just found out about the plans to kill the coin for a new one....looked at what block I moved my coins....figures ...730,235....I'm at a loss for words....

You are assuming a retroactive self-serving block is chosen, which it may be. In that case, yes, those who bought or dug after the block would be disadvantaged. I'm guessing whoever is choosing the block would not be among them (at least not to a significant degree).

If the block to be chosen is assigned is in the future as I recommend, then everyone can decide whether to buy (or sell or dig) before or after the split.

Neither coin has an inbuilt advantage and certainly everyone will not switch to it. I will likely abandon a coin that has no ongoing distribution mechanism to bring in new users and especially if it was distributed according to an arbitrary self-serving block. Maybe the new coin will have a good trading value short term given the reduced supply, which is fine with me. I'll get more for my new coins when I dump them.

I don't know what will happen to the old coin, and neither do you. If the idea of a coin with a distribution mechanism going to non-dust holders of BTC/LTC/DOGE was a good idea then it should still do fine. If not then it will die a natural death. There is no need to try to prop it up.

This message was too old and has been purged

That's exactly what I said in my last line.

But someone who does do that will have to face danonthehill's accusation of having choosing an arbitrary self-serving block to decide distribution until the end of time. Maybe that is an acceptable cost.

This message was too old and has been purged