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.
You're not responsible for "the best", or for CLAM. You're responsible for Dooglus. The internet is full of self-styled "victims" looking for someone to blame for their decisions. That will never end. Fuck it - take it all and put it on red, or 00. Repeat 'til finished. Then do a Satoshi. He's revered, despite all the gnashing of teeth over blocksize, TXID malleability, large holdings, linkability, and all the other BTC imperfections. |
|
|
|
|
Don't know if BAC is 20 years old or 40 years old, but his socio-political theories are timeless.
|
|
|
|
Please remember to vote on if you think the SuperClam community account should have elections to see who controls it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1212422.msg12721665#msg12721665Right now the majority says yes... which I happen to agree with. Because it does seem like a public community position. I doubt voting means much to "these" folks unless they agree with what's being voted on & if the vote goes how "they" like. But still... VOTE! I agree with BAC. Present account holders are totalitarian, arbitrary, disrespectful, smug. New account holders needed - someone level-headed, mature, stable, rational. I nominate BAC and Hippie Tech. |
|
|
|
Either way, the money supply is being massively diluted by digging, and the price is dropping.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that this is a betting site/exchange owner acting alone. How is the effect on supply/price different from the actions of (for the sake of argument) 1000 "real" wallet owners doing the same thing with the same CLAMs (that were really their property). Is it the compressed time frame (3 months) that is the problem? |
|
|
|
That "first stake or spend" is the act we are talking about changing the rules for.
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? 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. Thank you for that explanation. I guess I need to update my user name to include more of the coins I'm too dumb for. Is there a limit on user name length? If anyone starts posting as TooDumbForAllCoins, it's me. |
|
|
|
That "first stake or spend" is the act we are talking about changing the rules for.
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? |
|
|
|
Learn to quote properly, don't be so fucking lazy.
I think the brg44 school of creative quoting is having a 10% off coupon this week. |
|
|
|
I would say closer to ZeroCash. I've heard from the relevant experts that Monero is not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own, but I have similar problems with ZeroCash standing on its own (it is almost "too private", for people to check and make sure it's working correctly). However, I think both (and/or, the concept of "coin privacy") will be among the first practical, usable, sidechain applications. I think that people will sidechain coins over, mix them on the sidechain, and then send them back. What are they implying by "not computationally-efficient enough to stand on its own"? No coin stands on its own, so long as shapeshift, localbitcoins, btc-e, poloniex, etc. exist. They are implying they missed the most recent opportunity to buy Monero at ~0.001 BTC, and will have to wait a liitle while for the next one.  FTFY |
|
|
|
So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?
Point of information. The notion of a plebiscite is irrelevant to a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; there is no central authority to enforce the result. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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,
How do you know this? |
|
|
|
@all
Mr. Steiner aka. BayAreaCoins, is a narcisistic sociopath who should not be trusted and /or taken seriously.
Please read his trust ratings and decide for yourself.
This coin, like every other shitclone these cryptsy/polo/early adopter/insiders have put out, is a scam and no different that the others.
First the reward reduction(s), then the wallet diggers... and now we have this epic struggle between Dooglus and BayAreaCoins, that will further FUD/exploit the greedy noobs into trading their wealth for cryptofiat.
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. |
|
|
|
The offensive language and behavior in the thread has gotten out of hand, however.
Apologize for the use of offensive language. It is just my normal style of writing and was not intended to offend anyone, but now that I have been asked to avoid it on this thread I will abide. The Dude abides. |
|
|
|
Dooglus I want my 3,000 CLAMs back from me paying you off for giving me insider information to shake Rat4 with his dox (provided to me by dooglus) and purchase 30% of the Clamcoins prior to Just-Dice launch. Please deposited to:
xS93qVJw4uypKmZjNKj8JgrgC2QQvxenWZ
Resulting in not giving my money back will result in negative feedback and other negative outcomes.
You have 48 hours from this post.
It was 1001 CLAMs. Here's the transaction: http://khashier.com/tx/e717d753d434552738710d08aeef32528db29300043658a0eb6f57cfc0ba9f58I never had rat4's dox and don't condone you "shaking" people. I"ll bet all my CLAMs (I don't have any), that BAC comes back and says, "yeah, but CLAM has dropped 2/3 in price, so you owe me 3000". |
|
|
|
People dont want buy so long digger still digging. He destroys the clam with use so long time.
Maybe that's the whole point. It could be someone who hates altcoins in general or CLAM in particular. Though i think i know very little persons who would, without need, destroy value they own only because they dislike altcoins. I think it's more likely that he don't have a clue about trading. Though who could it be? Who owned so big wallets? It's Satoshi. He doesn't want his BTC wallets to be seen moving, so he cashes in his million, billion clams. Christmas coming, brakes on the car need fixed, mama crying for some bling. Satoshi has needs, too. |
|
|
|
|
a portrait of reptilla would fetch many XMR
A bowling date with the Dude would fetch many XMR at auction
A precious-metal XMR signature "ring" would fetch some XMR
|
|
|
|
...
If you want to outbid me you have to offer him better than 300USD in mark-to-market XMR priced at acceptance, all-inclusive, shipped to USA, with escrow. Curiously, XMR is showing signs of potentially becoming a pre-eminent currency of creative patronage....? I'd pay for art in XMR.  would you get the XMR from your bit-furry? |
|
|
|
As a Clam holder I would appreciate ending the digging process. Especially since it has been a while. People who are interested in Alt-coins probably have heard of clams by now. The end of digging could bring more interest and money into the coin.
Is it possible to prevent further digging though? Isn't digging just using a previously unused private key to move coins. So to prevent that we would have to remove the ability to send coins which were initially distributed but have yet to be moved?
Yes, and as a bitcoin holder I would like it if they stopped block rewards. We can stop staking for clams too. The whole point of clams is that they were fairly distributed, just because some have taken longer than others to dig theirs, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. I agree that stopping the digs altogether is not the best solution. What about a halving of the Dig rewards in May 2016 (2 years from the launch date) as indicated in the previous page? We can expand this further that every subsequent halving would be twice the number of years as the previous one. The dig rewards would look like this: May 2014 - 4.6 May 2016 - 2.3 May 2020 - 1.15 May 2028 - 0.575 May 2044 - 0.2875 May 2076 - 0.14375 May 2140 - 0.071875 How about we take your coins and cut them in half next year instead. Save CLAM by leaving it the fuck alone. ^ Second. Here here! or, "hear! hear!", as the case may be |
|
|
|
As a Clam holder I would appreciate ending the digging process. Especially since it has been a while. People who are interested in Alt-coins probably have heard of clams by now. The end of digging could bring more interest and money into the coin.
Is it possible to prevent further digging though? Isn't digging just using a previously unused private key to move coins. So to prevent that we would have to remove the ability to send coins which were initially distributed but have yet to be moved?
Yes, and as a bitcoin holder I would like it if they stopped block rewards. We can stop staking for clams too. The whole point of clams is that they were fairly distributed, just because some have taken longer than others to dig theirs, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. I agree that stopping the digs altogether is not the best solution. What about a halving of the Dig rewards in May 2016 (2 years from the launch date) as indicated in the previous page? We can expand this further that every subsequent halving would be twice the number of years as the previous one. The dig rewards would look like this: May 2014 - 4.6 May 2016 - 2.3 May 2020 - 1.15 May 2028 - 0.575 May 2044 - 0.2875 May 2076 - 0.14375 May 2140 - 0.071875 I personally would be unhappy with that return proposed for 2076. Messes with my plans. |
|
|
|
The merge is news, the release will be news. It's a darned interesting feature!
Old news, and there is nothing for people to do about it yet. Making noise about it now will only slow deployment, because you'll expend people's attention when there is no action for them to take.  Does "expending people's attention" amount to "violence"? |
|
|
|
Aminorex used XMR to buy a painting more than a year ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
should have gotten preserved like a Damien Hirst tiger shark.
