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

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.

His style is very combative but underneath it he obviously shows great passion for the topic, and we need passionate people, they make the world go'round I just wish BAC and some of the other participants would keep it civil for fear of this spinning out of control and getting locked down. This has obviously become personal too, which does not add anything good to the topic.

BAC I have a question for you: do you see a problem with a large exchange, for example coinbase, deciding to dig all of their constituents' wallets for clams, and gaining all the riches from them? (not all exchanges will be noble like Poloniex, as the current digger is proving). If you do see a problem with that, then advocating not changing anything and staying the course is not compatible. Because I think it is a huge problem that goes against the grain of "fair distribution" that was the very intent of this coin. As Doog put it, it would be technically not feasible to somehow "blacklist" exchanges from perpetrating such offense, so we need another solution. But I do think it is worth pursuing a solution as long as it is compatible with the core principles of the coin.

I think it is very important to realize that changing the rules along the way is not necessarily compromising the "foundation", so long as it is done for the right reasons, ie as I have stated before, as long as we don't change rules with the purpose of preserving the monetary value of the coin. If we do it to preserve the "fair distribution", then it's ok. Understand, it is not always possible for founders to foresee all possible contingencies from the very beginning. That is why the US constitution had 27 amendments. Did the amendments compromise the constitution? No, because they were enacted in the spirit of preserving and BUILDING upon the the Constitution and what it was trying to accomplish. We have an opportunity now to build upon and improve this coin.

If you disagree, please reason with me. Lets resolve this with logic and not emotions.

By the way, on the topic of Doog... I don't really want to get involved between the spat with BAC but I'd like to point out that first of all, without Doog CLAM wouldn't be where it is today, it probably would have remained confined to obscurity without JD. He's done this community a service and I think BAC you yourself have profited greatly owing to this, and I believe a bit of respect or at least gratefulness is in order.
Also, it was Doog who pointed out the digger to the community in the first place if I remember correctly. We might have found out eventually anyways, but how long it would have taken for someone to realize this and make it public, we can only guess. I see no indication that Doog profited from his knowledge, ie he could have dumped a lot of clams before making this info public and panic ensuing. That in itself I think speaks volumes about his credibility.
Actions speak louder than words.

Doog, not sure if you read my entire post, but I don't advocate leaving things as they are necessarily. What I was getting at is that changes are not necessarily bad as long as they are made in order to preserve the fairness of the coin and its core principles, and not its monetary value. The changes that were implemented that you speak of were done in that manner, and that's ok.
My suggestion as a solution was to restrict large commercial entities with access to other people's addy's from digging, like exchanges and gambling sites. That was not the intent of the distribution model and is not fair to average joes, especially ones whose addy's the exchanges would use to dig. I was hoping you would chime in as to the feasibility of "isolating" such digs, technically speaking. Is it possible?

Hi folks, I'd like to mention a couple of things on the subject of the digger and the future of CLAM that I feel are important and it seems are being left out (I tried to read back as far as I can and didn't find some of this stuff mentioned, forgive me if I am mistaken).

By the way, some of you may know me as "Fido" on JD, this here is an old account I made back in the day...

One fundamental aspect of CLAM is that it was well known from the very get-go that there were 3,208,032 sets of ~4.6 CLAM distributed to BTC LTC and DOGE addresses from the very beginning, making the total potential pre-staking supply of CLAM around 15 million, right away. The JD community got used to the slow "roll out" of clams initially, during the course of the first year or so, and got complacent with their trading and position placement. Basically, y'all got used to there being a total supply of around ~200-300K clams in circulation, plus that much more due to ongoing staking, and were basing your trading, betting, and all the other fun stuff you can do with CLAMS on that math I.E the community got complacent.
Also on that note, any reasonable investor/participant in the CLAM community could have and should have deduced that from the very get-go, a lot of the addresses that clams were sent to during the distro, were likely to have been mostly on exchanges, gambling sites, etc. We also know how difficult it is to get private keys for addy's on such places, and we can also assume that a lot of people would simply forget about a lot of these addresses, never find out about CLAM, or any number of other issues that would prevent them from ever claiming their CLAMS. Which means that all of these addy's would remain in the hands of the exchanges, who would have an easy method of claiming said CLAMS, making them the potential whales in the room. I know I came to these conclusions early on when gauging whether I should involve myself with CLAMS, and based on these factors, I decided that my CLAM positions would be limited to short or medium term holdings, until more of the potential CLAM supply becomes ACTUAL and this large uncertainty is removed.
What I am saying is, along comes the Digger, and a lot of people are crying foul now because their holdings' value is plummeting. I am not sure why they are surprised, this is something that should have been obvious that has a large potential of happening. My theorizing above is turning into reality, and it should come as no surprise. What's more, the digger is actually unloading a relatively SMALL part of all potential clams, and he isn't even dumping them on the markets en-masse. It could get a whole lot worse. Just look at the orderbook on the largest clam exchange Poloniex, it would take a dump of 188K clams to bring the price down to 5 satoshis. Yes, 5 satoshis!
So in this regard, I think BayAreaCoins is correct that a lot of the people who are crying foul now are the ones who are being inconvenienced by the digger, as a result of their own decision making. The digger's actions were to be expected, and I think everyone was hoping that something like that wouldn't happen, but at the same time shouldn't be surprised.


Another point that I think we ought to consider is the fact that CLAM's hallmark feature was the attempt at FAIR distribution, and this is where I make an honorary mention of BeLiefs and his posts. I think we should never deviate from this cause. One argument that could be made in favor of limiting the digger is, to me at least it seems obvious that the digger represents a commercial entity, and I think Doog did mention that it is very likely that the majority of addresses used to be on some gambling site. I don't think large exchanges and other entities using other users' CLAMS by virtue of having access to them was the CLAM founders' idea of fairness. I think the point was for average joe's to have an equal and fair chance to access to these coins. So perhaps the most fair thing to do would be to somehow limit large commercial entities from profiting at the expense of average Joe's? But how do we distinguish from clams that are being dug up by exchanges and gambling sites from clams that re being honestly claimed by individuals? Is such method even possible? I doubt it, but I will let the experts chime in on this one, such as Doog and the clam founders.

Finally, I think the fundamental problem with CLAM value right now boils down to this: there simply isn't enough demand to absorb potential dumps by large players such as the digger. 76% of all clams are invested in JD, with another who knows how many being held in deposit for gambling. I've always said it, as much as I trust Dooglus, we need to diversify, and I even threw around the idea to some members for creating a good Poker site based on clams. God forbid something were to happen to Doog, or the legal climate in Canada, and the site goes down. We need to expand the markets where clams can be used, so that there is enough demand for all 15 million clams distributed, so we wouldn't even have to worry about that.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out that I myself have CLAM holdings and while a high value is obviously in my financial interest, I don't want that to happen at the expense of sacrificing the core values that made this coin acceptable to many. Money IS NOT EVERYHING. From my experience in business, I have come to realize that money always follows good business practices, staying true to one self and to the customer base.
I am still not certain as to the proper course of action here, other than my idea that large institutions with access to CLAM addy's don't represent the intention of this coin and there could be a case made for limiting them, but again, I am not sure how this could be implemented in practice. I hope I am not repeating anyone else here, and thanks for considering my points. Comments by everyone will be much appreciated!

-Fido

That's precisely part of the issue, I based my logic on the premise that some, if not most, will declare more offsite coins than they actually have. Since we have no way of knowing the truth, we should level the playing field by rewarding only coins that are actually deposited.

I do foresee a run to declare close to the max amount of coins by people who desire to maintain their "stake" as you mentioned. Which, as you mentioned, will over-leverage people and make the site prone to wild swings in capitalization and max profit in case a whale comes in.

I also see the alternative that you mentioned, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives. By the way, could it be possible to separate staking from profit on the site, without doing a major re-design? For example, if profits are awarded based on online and offline coin amounts, but staking is rewarded only for online coins, then it seems like it would be more practical to separate the two income streams?

Doog, I saw you tinkering with Doge-dice yesterday and understand your busy schedule, thank you for taking the time to update us.
I think what you are experimenting with is very innovative and does potentially alleviate the risk for investors while adding another dimension to the entire risk/reward idea. I will think about what you said today and hopefully I can come up with a more insightful answer to your questions.

In the mean time, one thing I can say right away pertains to the staking: I am convinced that staking should be given out based only on the coins that are actually invested on-site, and should not be leveraged. The logic is as follows: Investor puts in 1000 clam and does /cold 9000, there are two possibilities here, one is that he is truthful about his off-site holdings, or he isn't. If he is truthful, his coins will claim a stake as long as he has the client running, therefore he shouldn't be rewarded with a double-stake from JD. If he is not truthful, then he doesn't get stake from JD on imaginary funds.

Like I said, I will think about the rest of your proposal and if I can add something further of value, I will certainly do that. I will also start keeping track of my account there and report my findings as time goes by.

Once again, I applaud you for not stopping to think about how you can better this experience for everyone, and for coming up with such ground-breaking ideas!

On a side-note, that still doesn't completely address my first questions above completely, but I understand you are busy so I will wait patiently, hopefully you can get to them at some point

Regards,

Doog, I am a former investor in your Doge-dice.com site (I was known there as Fido) and I have a pertinent question that I didn't see anyone ask. Excuse me if I am repeating it, honestly I did not sift through all 183 pages here, but I did go through most.

My question pertains to your future plans about this site. CLAM is the currency of choice now, and until you restarted your website, almost no one was interested in this currency, relatively speaking. Your act of instating this as the only currency of JD actually caused a massive price spike. As a result, ~65% of the currency is invested here now.
Now, one of the main reasons you have cited for closing down JD and DD was that you were nervous about holding so much of people's money. However, on your blog post from June 23rd, 2014 you and Deb cited the main reason being the uncertainty around Canada's then-newly enacted regulations concerning money transmitting, online gambling, etc.
Part of my question then is, which one is it? If you closed your sites due to regulations, what has changed now? You are still in Canada from what we know, and the regulations that spooked you in the first place would very much still apply to your site; legally, it makes no difference if you accept CLAM or DOGE or BTC for investments, CLAM now has the status of a widely use means of exchange with a market cap of close to $1M and growing daily.
Second part of my question is, if your main reason for closing down your sites before was the stress from handling large sums of money, then how do you anticipate handling the situation when JD inevitably grows much bigger? Your top investor now, per your most recent blog post, already has ~50,000 CLAM invested, which is ~$75,000USD at current market prices. And that's just one person. Plus, the entire online gambling community has trust in you and will seek out your sites first and foremost to invest, so growth is all but guaranteed to continue further.
Which brings me to the main part of my question: the reasons that you cited for closing down DD and JD in the first place, it seems to me, still apply (or will apply soon again). What then? Will you abruptly shut down the site again? How will you handle it? The problem now is that if you were to do that again, the consequences will be catastrophic: people will make a run to exchange their now useless CLAM's for BTC and it will crash the price, wiping out a huge part of their funds. Forgive me for using the word "useless", I think the idea behind CLAM is great, but let's face it, CLAMS are mainly used and bought now so that people can gamble on your site. Your idea to use CLAM because they are more evenly distributed, while noble, will not prevent people from buying CLAM and driving the price up.
Now, some folks may say "well, if you want to be greedy and buy CLAMS only so you can invest here for a profit, that's your risk", and I will agree with a part of that, that's why I am asking these questions so that I can alleviate that risk to an extent. Doog, you may even claim that you don't care about large investors in here, and that you prefer not to have them, since you yourself have stated that you want this site to be mainly for fun.... why have the investment option at all then? Or why not cap it to a maximum per person/IP address, so that for the most part you will not hold too much of anyone's money?

I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my questions. You have given us no reason to doubt you, and I want to make it clear to everyone reading this that while being cautious due to the new challenges presented by the current course this site has taken, I believe in Doog, I think he is trustworthy, and he is the only person who owns such site that I would consider putting my money into, otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking these questions.

Why do you want to crash it? To buy low, or out of disdain towards Ripple itself?