Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 258. (Read 1151252 times)

Mr. Higgins is much more qualified to follow up, but IMO the thrust of his post is not "plebiscite", but rather "central authority".  Is CLAM decentralized or not?  If yes, changes are made via a concensus mechanism.  Voters are miners and nodes, not forum posters, gamblers, and investors.

Which site was that? Did it end in a scam? Might be interesting for those who got damaged. Though maybe i await already always the worst related to bitcoin businesses.

To me, the initial distribution of CLAMs was brilliant, and maybe the most fair way available to distribute a new cryptocurrency. I think it really served its purpose, but now provides too much risk to the CLAM market. There are many undug clams that sit in large caches controlled by single individuals or companies that run(or previous ran) exchanges or other services. These individuals could dump a large supply on the market at any time if they decide to do so.

I would love to have a vote to let the CLAM owners decide the future of the currency.

How about only allow 1 dig per block if you stake?

Minor changes can easily go to a vote process but core changes to the coin how could it be fair to even suggest voting on it? Who would get to vote? How many people would not know a vote occurred? What percentages would be considered acceptable? is it even fair to consider changing core rules when so many have invested on the notion that they can't or wont be changed? none of these questions sound good and it will cause the same problem btc is having with bp101. In this case the whole slippery slope argument is pretty valid.

I second this. Please let's try to discuss this rationally like adults.


I hear you. But the first question that needs answering is "should we have a vote to decide this?"

I'm not asking how you would vote, but whether we should vote. Lots of people say "we should leave it how it is", but that's one of the options in the vote. I don't see anyone (with the possible exception of BAC) directly saying "we should overrule what the majority wants and try to force an unpopular rule set on the majority".

First we need to be clear about whether this is a democracy, and if it is then we can make a list of the candidates and start voting for them.

If it isn't then I guess we carry on as before, and just have xploited and creative change the rules however and whenever they like. I don't see that as a better system to be honest, and I don't think they do either. Although it would be nice if they would chime in and say what they think about how CLAM governance should be working.


It doesn't make much difference to me personally. Sure I hold some CLAM of my own, but it's nothing compared to my BTC and other holdings. I am much more interested in making the majority happy than with my own greedy self interest. If the majority want to keep things just how they are then that's fine with me.


I'd like to see that answered in public too. I chatted a little with Creative in JD after my long post a few night ago, but I don't think she's made a public post addressing it.


While it's true that it is possible for the majority to be wrong about what's best for them, do you have a better idea? Is there any guarantee that doing whatever micalith thinks is best for example is any better than doing what the majority wants?


You're saying that having a discussion about whether we should do whatever the majority wants or not is pointless, because in a distributed system like CLAM "whatever the majority wants" is exactly what we always do whether we like it or not? If the majority wants to stop digging, they will make a fork where digging is prohibited, and being the majority, their fork will win?

While that makes sense in theory, I think for the most part people are too passive to make the change they want to see, and will go along with whatever "the official release" does. Sure they'll bitch and moan if they don't like it ("waaah, CLAM is dying, stop the digger") but won't actually do anything about it.


I had to look up "plebiscite". It means "a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal".

Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best. If it's at all close, we'll have a lot of blockchain reorgs as the forks compete with each other, and a lot of mess as previously confirmed transactions become unconfirmed as the forks battle for dominance.

The point of having a probably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess. If one proposal gets a clear majority of the votes, and everyone sees that that is the case, then "we" can make a new official release implementing that most popular proposal and have a good expectation that the majority will switch to running that code. Obviously we can't enforce that result, but since it is by definition the most popular result, we won't have to.


What do you mean by 'mirror' here? I'm sorry, but you lost me.


None. You can spend unconfirmed coins if you want to.


OK. But the question is whether you would be OK to go along with the majority if it turns out their opinion is different.


Staking benefits all holders proportionally. If you have 1% of the CLAM market cap and then everyone's holdings increase by 10% due to staking, then you still hold 1% of the CLAM market cap afterwards and your CLAMs should be worth the same. Each CLAM would be worth 10% less, but you'd have 10% more of them. So I don't think your point about wanting staking to stop is valid.


You have to bear in mind that he spent time and money building his clamchecker.com site, where he hopes to make a lot of money buying people's private keys and digging with them. I think that's where most of his passion is coming from - it's in line with his own bottom line.

I would certainly appreciate it if we could debate this based on logical arguments and without resorting to personal attacks.


Exactly this. Please present your arguments without attacking people.


Whether that is true or not isn't relevant here. Please let's talk about CLAM, not who's the biggest dick. (It might be me, after all).


So that's a vote against preventing digging. Are you OK with putting it to the vote and going along with the majority decision?


I guess you mean 1 dig per day per person? How are we to tell which digs are made by which people? There's only 1 dig allowed per address already, and there's no way of knowing which addresses are owned by which people so I don't see how such a limit would work. Or do you mean to limit it to 1 dig per day globally? The 'digger' has enough addresses to create a 20 year tailback if that's the case.


The two camps we're trying to pick between are:

a) have a vote and do what the majority decide
b) ignore the majority, and if they want to change the rules then try to force them to follow rules they are no longer happy with, as if they couldn't just make their own fork

Is there a third camp? Which camp are you in?

I'll try addressing the BAC posts separately if I can muster the energy.

A BAC  / Dooglus showdown, Fuck yeah

How bout instead of that dump all the clams and make JD Bitcoin based again

Not sure why you are still talking to me DrkShill.


I don't really care if you disagree with me.  I disagree with a lot of things, but I don't take kindly to shills trying to rob people for millions of their CLAMs for a month straight at this point despite the majority saying no change.

If your concerned about one person having an effect on the future of a crypto currency then maybe you need to pack your bags and stroll the fuck on...  Maybe I am the digger too.  Would be a pretty epic combo eh?

"I'd love to get involved with Bitcoin, but Goat, the pool hopper fucker, really worries me... I think I won't buy <$100 Bitcoins!" Said no one ever


I fulled expected the price of CLAM to go down.  I have had enough of Dooglus for a while now ever since he attacked my services and I'm sure the feeling is mutual at this point, but I'm persistent as fuck.  CLAM has to grow outside of Doogs strong hold and I'm happy to be a part of that in whatever way I can.

I do have a stake in CLAM due to services that I've been building and managing for a year at this point almost. These services not only payout to me, but to other people in the community as well.  (Each one of my sites is developed by a different community member for the most part and we split up earnings)

I've been on the internet my whole life with some fairly nasty trolls... it doesn't hurt my feelers being called a 3 year old or standing up for what is right even if it's me standing alone... which it isn't the case at this point thank god.

It isn't plausible this wasn't understood when the coin was created. The existence of parties such as exchanges and others with large numbers of addresses is no secret.

That may be so, but you yourself argued that you resist change brought about by opportunism, and that your issue is that we are trampling on the foundations of the coin. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the founders of the coin had fair distribution as the core value of the coin, and that one exchange taking control of a vast amount of users' coins would not be considered fair distribution. Luckily, the founders are around us so perhaps they can chime in on this?



Yeah there may have been some bad apples. But what about the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments for example? Aren't you glad those were passed? From talking to you before, I get the feeling you are quite happy about them.

Dooglus himself traced the series of addy's being dug by the digger to a now defunct gambling site.

BAC you may be suffering from the sunk cost fallacy. I know you've put a lot of effort into your faucets and recently clamchecker.com but if you're upset with the drama on JD and dooglus and you have no stake in Clams themselves it might be worth considering cutting your losses.

Apology not accepted. Talk is cheap. You're obviously an unstable loudmouth with the intellect of a 3 year old. You'll throw another tantrum the next time anyone disagrees with you or you don't get your way.

With regard to CLAM's future, your involvement in this coin to the extent that you are worries me a lot more than any digger.

*slow bows*


Totally agree.  My apologizes to the community.  I'm only here because it means something to me and I want to be a part of something successful... which is probably why I've been attracted to Just-Dice up until lately.


I don't see a problem with it.

"By definition the rightful owner of any coins is "he who can send them". If you take issue with that, please stick to fiat."

I believe that it is very important for the users to help steer the service in the proper direction by bring up the conversation with them about possibly retrieving their CLAM.

There was talk about being able to stake Clamcoins by using a signature alone.  This would open up all of coinbase's clams for users to begin earning off of them.


I'm VERY much against blacklisting and limiting digs of any type.  Regardless of how rich the user is or the number of addresses they posses ect.


Our country has had some pretty nasty effects due to the amendments that I think we would have been much better without... the majority of those "bad amendments" were pushed by people with their heart in the wrong place and trying to take advantage of timing and such in for them to personally profit more.  (Booze for example... they waited until all the men where shipped off and then rammed that shit down the public's throat.)


*glances at your trust feedback*

Mk.   

How do you know this?

You and I are not in disagreement, because I did not advocate for "preventing new people from digging clams". What I advocated is to somehow restrict non-people from doing so, i.e. large exchanges and gambling sites from taking advantage of the distro model, which is what is happening with the digger, and which goes against the fairness intent of the distro model. I am NOT in favor of preventing regular folk from digging up their rightful clams. But due to lack of the technical feasibility of distinguishing between clams dug by average joes and clams dug by "diggers" who are exploiting average joes' addys, I am not sure what the proper solution would be. However, leaving things unchanged would also not be the right choice.

Right now I am trying to see if we can first reconcile the camps who say "something must be done" with those saying "nothing should be done, at any cost", and we can go from there.

   A change to prevent digging is only "to preserve the monetary value of the coin".  Unless you can convince me that preventing new people from digging clams is somehow fair.  "Sorry, we distributed clams to all wallets, but because you waited to long, you lose out."  

   Slowing digging (IE only allowed 1 dig per day) would preserve the fair distribution model.  Preventing digging or reducing the claim amount is only fair to those who made the deadline.  

   Just so I'm clear, I hold a fairly large amount of clams and I'm in the red at the current price, but this is more about the coin then the price.  If I was worried about the price, I would be in the make a change camp too.    
    

The REP system is terrible of course and a horrible way of determining sincerity and trust of users.

Show me where I've been wrong...

and.. are you related to snakey ? lol

You left out the negative trust know-it-all-doomsayers who post for no other reason than to see their own reflection while exercising their other hand.