Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 254. (Read 1151252 times)

That said, Just-Dice controls the majority of the staking CLAM and hence the majority of the CLAM network.
There is little the minority of solo-stakers could do to challenge such a change.

Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?

Anyone who wants digging to stop switches to doogcoin. Presumably JD switches to doogcoin too. I guess most CLAM holders dump their CLAM to buy more doogcoin. CLAM price goes to 0, doogcoin price goes to the moon. Is that the correct outcome? Is that what you're proposing?

I'd appreciate hearing from you and xploited. Do either of you have anything to contribute to the discussion?

This is essentially accurate.

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 

I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address,

but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

It's not value destruction as long as the economy is growing with the money supply,

unless those sites grow their gambling base at the same rate as CLAM inflation, isn't inflation devaluing the coin?

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.

Either way, the money supply is being massively diluted by digging, and the price is dropping.

  Is the problem digging or dumping?  Digging, in and of itself, will not cause the price to drop.  Dumping will.  There are several ways to end up with dumping.  

a) dig up a bunch of clams and sell them off as fast as you can.
b) own a lot of clams, then get butt hurt and dump them all on the market.
c) win a large amount on JD and dump them just to get the BTC.  
d) inherit clams, then dump them.  
e) people panicking over rumors.  

    Just throwing it out there.

The speculation "A whale is dumping down the price" which I saw in many posts and yours too, seems purely dictated by fear and not by rational thinking. If a whale is really 'forcing' the price, then no problem, in few time the price will recover.

Please convince me this is not fearmongering, in that case I doubt the 'right' decisions will be taken.

More demand? Surely you can stop supply, but this doesn't mean you'll have more demand, and so you don't necessarily have an increase in price. But I can think of a way for having more demand: a low price so that people can 'buy and play on JD'

I like the inflation of CLAMs, I am just saying that currently is "too much".

Why not implement said Doogcoin alongside Clam on JD, instead of in its place? Kind of like Alex's site where you can gamble a few different crypto's with one common trollbox, etc?

  I think I finally wrapped my head around it.  When you submit your wallet to the client, it will generate the matched clams keys.  So your Clams client will reflect the balance as recorded in the first few clams blocks.  Nothing happens on the block chain.  Now if you leave the wallet long enough it could stake those addresses and the new balance would be reflected in a new block on the chain.  Or you could move all of your coins to a new address.  in either case once you move the balance from the origin block you can find a DIG transaction in the clams debug log.   

   Not sure if this is a fact, But I usually like to say claim, for importing the wallet, and updating your clams wallet, and Dig for the actual movement. 

I believe the thought was to, eliminate the code to move clams from blocks <  9500 or something around there.  And to fail transactions that try to do that.   

  I think I finally wrapped my head around it.  When you submit your wallet to the client, it will generate the matched clams keys.  So your Clams client will reflect the balance as recorded in the first few clams blocks.  Nothing happens on the block chain.  Now if you leave the wallet long enough it could stake those addresses and the new balance would be reflected in a new block on the chain.  Or you could move all of your coins to a new address.  in either case once you move the balance from the origin block you can find a DIG transaction in the clams debug log.   
   Not sure if this is a fact, But I usually like to say claim, for importing the wallet, and updating your clams wallet, and Dig for the actual movement. 
I believe the thought was to, eliminate the code to move clams from blocks <  9500 or something around there.  And to fail transactions that try to do that.   

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 

I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address, but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

In so far as the digger is dumping and forcing the price down, yes.

I'm not sure you meant "staking" there, since it doesn't make much sense. Staking happens once per minute, by design, whoever is digging, dumping, or whatever else.


I really do think that if the rules were changed to stop new CLAMs being dug up then there would be less supply, more demand, and an increase in price. I'm surprised you don't. As I understand it, nobody is claiming that stopping the digging wouldn't cause the price to rise. The objection is only whether it is fair to do such a thing.


I think the concern is that we don't have two or three years. If the price continues dropping for another year will anyone still be interested in the coin? There are hundreds if not thousands of dead altcoins out there which would be staking nicely if only anyone could be bothered to still have the wallet running.


This seems to be a common misconception:

"Staking is like inflation, and inflation is bad"

We feel that inflation is bad, because in the fiat world we put $1000 in a savings account, earn 2% interest on it, but in the mean time the money supply has been inflated 10% by quantitative easing. Our $1002 now has less buying power than it had before. It is a smaller percentage of the total money supply.

This is even true with PoW coins like DogeCoin. Miners get to earn block rewards forever. We buy a million DOGE, save it, and every day our million DOGE represents a smaller and smaller percentage of the money supply.

However! For PoS coins this isn't the case. We buy 1000 CLAMs, and it's 0.1% of the 1 million total money supply, say. If there's no digging, and only staking, then a year later another 500k CLAMs have been staked. But we have staked 500 of that 500k, since we are 0.1% of the staking weight. So now we have 1500 of the 1.5 million supply, and still have 0.1% of the total money supply. Sure, assuming a constant market cap the price will have decreased by 50%, but our holdings have increased by 50% too, so our net worth in CLAM has remained constant.

In this way staking is NOT the same as the inflation we see in USD, BTC, or DOGE, since the newly created coins are shared out to existing holders in proportion to their holdings.


but it shouldn't. Staking is "running to stay still". The only people you will be overtaking are those who aren't running (staking). I mean, staking isn't some magic wealth creation system. If everyone is staking, where does all that extra value come from? It doesn't. It increases the money supply while decreasing the per-unit value of that supply.