Ok, guys. I'm the whale digger. I can prove it if necessary.
Yes, it is true that I am digging and selling my CLAMs for BTC. Though I am not dumping hard. I usually just put asks above the market price. I rarely ever do a market sell order. So although I am adding sell pressure to the price by adding asks to the orderbook, I am not "dumping" technically. The main reason why the price crashed hard is because the fear of me dumping. This lead everyone else to dump.
If you're not holding, you're dumping. I think that being measured about it doesn't change this fact. This is not to say that it's a bad thing (I'm agnostic about that), but call a spade a spade. Btw, thanks for identifying yourself and adding some small measure of clarity to this situation. I do believe that anyone else here, if they found themselves in your shoes, would be responding to the same economic incentive in much the same manner you are. |
|
|
|
It's cute that people say this, but JD has controlled more than 50% of the coin supply ever since I've been using it. It's over 70% currently, peaked around 77% recently, somebody big divested, it would seem.
Yes, but it is not Doog's money, but from the investors, and there is no one big investor: http://just-dice.blogspot.de/search/label/bankrollHe who has the private keys owns the money. It is most certainly "Doog's money" at the present because he has the power to control it. He's just promised to return it to your control upon your request, and there's no reason at all to doubt he won't, but don't be confused about the fact that it's not your money until it's returned to your control. The fact remains that this decentralized currency is very centrally concentrated under the control of one person presently. |
|
|
|
I have heard by many very prominent sources that people are looking for way to enforce price stability on bitcoin. This would be a BIP that pegs the value of bitcoin to some commodity like oil or some stable currency like the USD, so that whenever the value of bitcoin goes up relative to what it is pegged to, more bitcoins are created to balance it out, thus stabilizing the price. The argument is that this will make bitcoin a viable unit of account, eliminate price volatility, and thus make bitcoin more usable, and encourage people to use it rather than to hoard it.
If 1 BTC = 1 USD in 2010, and 1 BTC = 500 USD in 2013, the proposed solution would be to "rebase" bitcoin, by creating inflation of bitcoin at x500, so 500 times more bitcoin are in circulation in 2013, and therefore 1 BTC still is equal to 1 USD, and the price of bitcoin is stable.
The problem I have with this is that, in the case were the Bitcoin supply is fixed like that of Gold, the end users, the holders of bitcoin, the common man, the poor, the middle class, received an increase of value of their bitcoin by 500x, because in three years there Bitcoin is now 500 times more valuable, and their purchasing power therefore has increased by that much.
On the other hand, by "rebasing" the supply, you transfer wealth and value from the end users, the holders of bitcoin, the common man, the poor and the middle class, directly into the hands of whoever gets the newly created bitcoin, via the tax of inflation. The bitcoin user then would have seen a 500x decrease in the value of their bitcoin in 3 years because their bitcoin would have been 500 times less valuable, and 500 times less purchasing power.
I view bitcoin as the "Gold Standard" of crypto currencies, so that all other crypto currencies are valued based on their value in Bitcoin. We need a "Gold STandard" of crypto currencies, and thus we need Bitcoin to remain scarce. It is this scarcity that makes bitcoin such a good store of value, just like the scarcity of gold makes it such a good store of value. To enable inflation in order to achieve price stability would come at the cost of Bitcoin's capabilities as a store of value.
The solution to the problem then is not to fundamentally change the Bitcoin protocol to allow for inflation and more than 21 million bitcoins, but rather to create an alt coin that is pegged to the price of Bitcoin in the same way as proposed, thus avoiding drastically altering the mission statement and vision of Satoshi for Bitcoin to mimic the qualities of Gold. The alt coin would produce more coins or reduce coins according to the price of Bitcoin, creating inflation and deflation to create price stability in that coin, which would be a unit of account because the resulting price stability, but not a very good store of value.
The limited supply, and fixed supply of bitcoin is fundamental to it's Store of Value property which serves as the cornerstone of all alt coins. all alt coins rest upon the value that is stored in Bitcoin. As soon as you remove the limit, and increase the supply, you compromise the store of Value property of bitcoin.
We can have price stability in an alt coin, and in fact, this need of price stability is a huge opportunity for someone looking to create a useful alt coin, simply peg the value to the price of bitcoin and inflate or deflate accordingly. But the cost of getting rid of the 21 million limit on bitcoin is far too much to justify going through it. The scarcity is a necessary part of being the "Gold Standard" of crypto currencies that Bitcoin is.
Seems I didn't read all the way through your post before commenting, so let me address this second part. The solution to the problem then is not to fundamentally change the Bitcoin protocol to allow for inflation and more than 21 million bitcoins, but rather to create an alt coin that is pegged to the price of Bitcoin in the same way as proposed, thus avoiding drastically altering the mission statement and vision of Satoshi for Bitcoin to mimic the qualities of Gold. The alt coin would produce more coins or reduce coins according to the price of Bitcoin, creating inflation and deflation to create price stability in that coin, which would be a unit of account because the resulting price stability, but not a very good store of value.
...
We can have price stability in an alt coin, and in fact, this need of price stability is a huge opportunity for someone looking to create a useful alt coin, simply peg the value to the price of bitcoin and inflate or deflate accordingly. But the cost of getting rid of the 21 million limit on bitcoin is far too much to justify going through it. The scarcity is a necessary part of being the "Gold Standard" of crypto currencies that Bitcoin is.
Logically, this makes no sense. You're talking about pegging an alt to Bitcoin, which would still trade freely relative to USD (which it should). This would do nothing to create stability in Bitcoin. By pegging an alt to Bitcoin, all that would do is create volatility in the alt that exactly matches Bitcoin's volatility relative to USD. The exchange rate of the alt to Bitcoin would always be constant, but that's a worthless attribute because the alt's volatility relative to the USD would always be the same as BTC's volatility to USD. This alt would serve absolutely no market function since it only does exactly what Bitcoin does, and therefore there is no reason for anyone to use it. |
|
|
|
I have heard by many very prominent sources that people are looking for way to enforce price stability on bitcoin. This would be a BIP that pegs the value of bitcoin to some commodity like oil or some stable currency like the USD, so that whenever the value of bitcoin goes up relative to what it is pegged to, more bitcoins are created to balance it out, thus stabilizing the price. The argument is that this will make bitcoin a viable unit of account, eliminate price volatility, and thus make bitcoin more usable, and encourage people to use it rather than to hoard it.
If 1 BTC = 1 USD in 2010, and 1 BTC = 500 USD in 2013, the proposed solution would be to "rebase" bitcoin, by creating inflation of bitcoin at x500, so 500 times more bitcoin are in circulation in 2013, and therefore 1 BTC still is equal to 1 USD, and the price of bitcoin is stable.
What you have just described is a centralized digital currency. This is the antithesis of what Bitcoin was founded to be, which is decentralized. On top of that, not only are you proposing centralization, but price-fixed centralization. You have basically just advocated for Bitcoin to work like Chinese government. |
|
|
|
If the value of a dollar is positive, and the total number of dollars is negative, then the total value of all dollars is negative.
How can you have a negative number of a physical object? I'm confused by the premise you've taken as a given. Is it possible for there to exist negative 11 apples in the world? Of course not, there are either some number of apples in the world, or there are 0 apples in the world. There cannot be negative numbers of physical objects. Negative value, on the other hand, is another matter. |
|
|
|
So now it comes full circle again to simply limiting the mining (digging) to an amount that would be equivalent to a PoW coin that has been out for as many months as CLAMs has. Several hundred clams dug per day was a rough approximation I had come up with in the past.
There is no need to stop the digging but it must be limited so that millions of coins cannot get dug in a short period of time. Any low impact solution that does not limit the daily digging in some way will probably not save the coin. I can see it limiting the speed at which diggers can make money and increasing the value of the coin significantly. So diggers might be against it having to wait longer to dig all their coins.
But better CLAMS market cap be $1 million+ again and have to wait to dig your CLAMs than for them to be near worthless as the market cap drops under $100k.
So how long till this vote? And then how long after that for implementation.
I don't share your optimism that slowing the digging will result in a recovered price. Higher than it is currently? Possibly, but I'm skeptical it holds for any meaningful period of time. The problem is that even with slowed digging, there's already a great many more CLAMs out there chasing the same small base of buyers, and the buyers are mainly gamblers at JD. So unless you increase demand for the coin, the base of buyers doesn't increase, and the price doesn't recover, it just keeps slowly dropping. Now the price might recover initially as confidence is restored in the system and people buy back in to earn their staking income under the delusion that they're "making money" by holding CLAM, but eventually to realize the "profit" they have to cash out to BTC, and when this happens in any meaningful way, the price plummets. This is the long term reality of CLAM. The falling price isn't an anomaly caused by the whale digger, it's the long term trend being accelerated by him. I agree and that's a large part of the reason, aside from it being unethical, that I'm firmly against any undug CLAM grab. The do well in the future this coin has to grow and that means: a) long term confidence that comes from NOT tinkering with the parameters when it is convenient, and b) bringing new people and services into the ecosystem, which is helped not harmed by having a stronger distribution mechanism. What if the next big digger is a huge site with a big BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet that instead of digging and dumping (as this digger appears to be doing) instead sees it in their interest to support CLAM on their site and promote it? That will never happen if the short-sighted decision is made to hurt future diggers in response to THIS digger. Pretty well said. The ethics at this point are the most important thing to me as well, including the concept of the majority (however that is defined: by count or voting weight) having the power to affect the rights of the minority. I don't know that even the "right" decision made here can give CLAM long-term viability, but the wrong decision can certainly destroy it. |
|
|
|
So now it comes full circle again to simply limiting the mining (digging) to an amount that would be equivalent to a PoW coin that has been out for as many months as CLAMs has. Several hundred clams dug per day was a rough approximation I had come up with in the past.
There is no need to stop the digging but it must be limited so that millions of coins cannot get dug in a short period of time. Any low impact solution that does not limit the daily digging in some way will probably not save the coin. I can see it limiting the speed at which diggers can make money and increasing the value of the coin significantly. So diggers might be against it having to wait longer to dig all their coins.
But better CLAMS market cap be $1 million+ again and have to wait to dig your CLAMs than for them to be near worthless as the market cap drops under $100k.
So how long till this vote? And then how long after that for implementation.
I don't share your optimism that slowing the digging will result in a recovered price. Higher than it is currently? Possibly, but I'm skeptical it holds for any meaningful period of time. The problem is that even with slowed digging, there's already a great many more CLAMs out there chasing the same small base of buyers, and the buyers are mainly gamblers at JD. So unless you increase demand for the coin, the base of buyers doesn't increase, and the price doesn't recover, it just keeps slowly dropping. Now the price might recover initially as confidence is restored in the system and people buy back in to earn their staking income under the delusion that they're "making money" by holding CLAM, but eventually to realize the "profit" they have to cash out to BTC, and when this happens in any meaningful way, the price plummets. This is the long term reality of CLAM. The falling price isn't an anomaly caused by the whale digger, it's the long term trend being accelerated by him. |
|
|
|
Last month I made 300 USD from blogs. It was a good month for me
Actually some people make few hundred dollars regularly from Adsense. It is good if one have a good blogs or sites and can get search engine traffic then one can make very good money from adsense. I used have a couple of moves blogs and made very good money but now no time and sites went down in google search engine. I don't have any idea about google search engine, but i advertise my web on forums and bump that one time per week.. Last month will be worst for me because probably i will get only $50 - $100, but since seven months i always have around $200 - $300 Without any experience.. I don't even know how work google analytics  So please tell me if there is some better advertise service than AdSense..? I think AdSense is what pays better. If you don't use AdSense, you need a lot more traffic to get a similar result. My problem with AdSense is they are total jerks about the TOS and if you break it it's over. Sometimes you are breaking it and don't even know you are infringing some stupid copyright law. I assume that's why they present you with the TOS and ask you to read it and click an agreement that you have read it. |
|
|
|
I don't say that gold specifically is genetically programmed into us. But the prerequisites for its becoming valuable are. Gold just happened to be there...
"Glittery stones" are mostly precious gems too, lol
The landscaping around my house is filled with white glittery rocks that reflect light in a very attractive way. Those rocks are virtually worthless. Being glittery has nothing to do with being valuable. Scarcity is the key component. |
|
|
|
Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...
Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective
Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it. So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it... Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold? No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet. You are talking in empty cliches. In any case, you yourself confirm that value of gold comes about through its "important qualities" (and you omitted its indestructibility), which cannot be taken from it (you can't "unmake" gold), lol... But these are not the qualities that made gold so valuable, though We were talking about whether or not gold's value is a learned trait or instinctual. You didn't address any points, you simply changed the subject. Gold's value does come from its specific traits, I've never said otherwise. But people still learn to value it, as opposed to being born valuing it as you were trying to maintain. |
|
|
|
Hey Guys,
Is there a White Paper I can take a look at anywhere?
TL/DR: Whats this "Digger" issue?
Thanks,
Pablo.
The short version: Someone with access to a great many CLAM-seeded addresses has been digging up a lot of new CLAMs and releasing them into the market. The sudden flood of CLAMs has pushed the price of CLAM very low. People are now debating what, if anything, to do about this. See Doog's chart below for a visual representation of what is happening. The appearance of the "whale digger" is the cause of concern. |
|
|
|
|
This conversation has been quite muddled with people advocating for a very broad range of things, and I'm a bit lost. Where do we stand currently? Are we determining the best way to have a vote or solicit feedback from the community, or are we still determining the merits of even having a vote?
|
|
|
|
Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...
Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective
Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it. So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it... Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold? No, you're assigning values of beauty. I'm speaking only about monetary value. People learned gold was valuable, and it was so through tradition. The tradition was established by the earliest civilizations in Asia and Africa where gold possessed two important qualities: it was naturally scarce, and it was so malleable that it could be cold-shaped into jewelry without heat or sophisticated tools. These two factors to a technologically primitive civilization assured that gold would be coveted by the highest classes in society to designate their superiority. Once that trait is established, it's just a matter of tradition. It didn't have to be gold, it's just random happenstance that it was. You give a gold nugget to a child, and it's just a rock. They have no idea it's valuable because there's nothing innate or instinctual about it. They just haven't learned to covet it yet. |
|
|
|
We prefer to target our development energies towards propositions which have a likelihood for support.
I don't think that is unreasonable.
In fact, I think it is the only way forward that is "fair" and makes any sense whatsoever.
I can only speak for myself, not anyone else voicing opposition to changes. From the perspective that you have determined to make changes, obviously to be successful you have to target the propositions which have a likelihood for support. So yes, I agree with you that this is reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's fair. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. For me, the issue is that people want to change the rules because they don't like the benefit that one person (or a small number of people) are deriving from the rules as they stand, and that arbitrary determination undermines the legitimacy of the system. It may be politically popular to take away someone else's rights, but that's not fair. |
|
|
|
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. Oh come on mate, you're trying to make the case that it's a distinction without a difference, but there is a huge difference. Let's call them potential and actual CLAMs to differentiate, like potential and kintetic energy. Potential energy can't hurt you until it becomes kinetic energy. In the same fashion, it is clearly established that only actual CLAMs affect price. Potential CLAMs are hypothetical (potential) until they're dug and become actual. The potential CLAMs aren't undergoing inflation, but the actual CLAMs absolutely are, and they're the ones that affect price. I agree with you on the the reset of expectations, I raised that point earlier and suggested the falling price was a foreseeable risk. That doesn't change the above though. 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. I agree with you. This has kinda been my point. There's talk about Doogcoin and yada yada, which baffles me because CLAM is a de facto Doogcoin. CLAM has virtually no value without JD. There are a couple other places you can gamble with it, but they only started after JD gave it legitimacy and brought the audience. No doubt that was not Doog's intention, I'm sure he liked the fair distribution model and the attributes of the coin, but by adopting such a tiny coin that was the inevitable result. I don't fault him necessarily for seeing that's the way it would turn out (that's nobody's fault), it just is what it is. Whether JD starts a new coin and abandons CLAM or keeps accepting CLAM along side it, or only accepts CLAM, CLAM's long-term prospects are terrible if all you can do with it is play at JD and stake more CLAMs. That has value in a CLAM-JD system, but not outside it. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
A lot of them are staying in thailand and philippines. Just close a deal from US expat wanting to buy beach front properties of Mandani Bay in Cebu Philippines.
The income tax rate in Philippines is around 32%. It is close to the rate within the United States. So if someone renounce his citizenship, I am not sure how much he is going to gain in terms of savings. And also, once you renounce your American passport, it will be extremely difficult to get it back at a later point. A Filipino passport is useless for international travel. Most likely, the majority of the people renouncing are ex-pats who already live overseas and are being double taxed by virtue of being American citizens. There is limited benefit to emigrating to avoid American taxes as the savings are probably negligible and the cost of giving up American citizenship is high, but in instances where someone is already gone, it makes a lot more sense. |
|
|
|
That is not the definition of an asset. An asset is something that has value. Period. A house is an asset. And yes, a car is an asset too. Please read the economic definition of asset before you post anything further: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asset.asp The definition of an asset is not something that earns you money, it's something that has value. This is so basic, it's pointless responding further. Yes this is so basic and you seem not to read the definition in the link you post yourself because you are sure you understand what an asset is: BREAKING DOWN 'ASSET'
1. Assets are bought to increase the value of a firm or benefit the firm's operations. You can think of an asset as something that can generate cash flow, regardless of whether it's a company's manufacturing equipment or an individual's rental apartment.
if you own something (a house, car, iPhone, laptop) and it is not increasing your value, as in it is not paying for itself and bringing in money, then it's not an asset. Then it's a liability. Then it's costing you a money. Then you need a job to pay for all the stuff you own. And the more stuff you own, the more you need to work to keep up with all the bills. And that is the problem... most of us don't own any assets. We only own liabilities... we are lured into spending our hard earned money on things to keep us poor. You subsidize your liabilities be working for them like a slave. I like the way kaselit put it: Poor buy things that generate debits.
Rich buy things that generate credits.
It's true that "An asset is something that has value" but it also needs the property that it keeps it's value. If it's not putting money in your pocket then slowly it's losing all it's value. If your iPhone is worth USD 600 and it's costing you USD 50 / month to own it than after one year it has value USD 0. Is it still an asset? It can get even to negative value after 1 year. Is it still an asset? Painfull as it is, most of us never owned an asset and probably never will. Unless you understand fundamentally what an asset is. Children never get a true financial education at school and they are prepped as consumers to spend spend jaysabi, be honest, do you own anything that generated money? Anything that pays a dividend while you are away on holidays, when you are not around? Most of the things we own are costing us money and that money goes to other people and companies. For them it's an asset on their books. For us it's a liability Take 3 minutes and read http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Education-Blog/april-2013/rich-dad-scam-6-your-house-is-an-asset.aspxWhen you go to get a loan and they ask to list your assets and liabilities to determine your credit worthiness, guess where cars and real estate goes. Under assets, not liabilities. The loans you have on the assets are liabilities. Under your definition, your 401K account would be a liability because you have to pay brokerage fees. Is a retirement account that holds $50,000 in it an asset or a liability? |
|
|
|
Not hard to prove, it's mathematically certain unless you're taking the unreasonable position that no fraction of a bitcoin will ever be lost after the minting phase of bitcoin is complete. It's already happened, and will continue to happen. Once the last bitcoin is minted, that's not "shrinking money velocity" (that term doesn't even mean anything, but I assume you mean decelerating inflation), that's deflation, which is falling prices (often) caused by a shrinking money supply.
I know that a permalock is possible, I`m not denyit it. And I know that eventually, all bitcoins will be locked (if the lock is irreversible, then probability tells us that in infinity all bitcoin will be locked) However I`m talking about now, and how can it be definitively proven that an address is really locked or not. It can't. So the only way to measure this is from the money velocity viewpoint, by looking at the transaction volume daily, and you will see that it will shrink eventually. I think I better understand what you were saying now. As long as bitcoins are being minted at a high rate (as opposed to the later phases where blocks will be fractions of a bitcoin), any losses due to locked addresses will be extremely insignificant compared to inflation. So yes, presently, it's negligible. |
|
|
|
I am trying to follow the discussion. Some opinions that I have (disclaimers: I own clams held in JD):
- Are CLAM holders concerned about the whale digger? I think they shouldn't. It's not a surprising fact that a whale digger arrived and the staking of clams is proceeding quite quickly, at least at the same rate as the whale is digging (even though nobody know why).
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. - Are CLAM holders concerned about the "low" price? I hope nobody here really thinks to be able to modify the price (like 'pumping' it) with some smart decision about the CLAM protocol, the market will always self-correct and these kind of bubbles are common to any cryptocoin anyway.
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. - Are CLAM holders concerned about future diggings? Since the rate of staking new coins is quite high, in two or three years new dug wallets *should* be irrelevant to the overall economy.
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. I personally think that currently we have another more important problem: staking is going very fast (we already have more staked coins than dug ones)
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. and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.
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. It's not value destruction as long as the economy is growing with the money supply, but exactly what economy is there underneath CLAM? I suppose a couple gambling sites could constitute an economy in the broadest measure of the word, but 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
