 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
 Thank you so much for doing this. I have sent a PM with my info.
|
|
|
|
I had grand visions of direct democracy powered by crypto until I watched "The Orville" Majority Rule episode. Oh well. The majority would likely reject such an idea, anyway.  |
|
|
|
g - goldkingcoiner
This raffle us over Join us for another on Monday Why i feel most of the times i come when you say see you next monday then come back like on friday. I have noticed that "tomorrow" means Monday on Fridays (I do the same sort of thing often -- I'm really bad with time,) but since I've been participating it's been Monday-Friday without a miss. Hoping I can start waking up earlier to not miss out like every day lol, but I'm not sure krogothmanhattan need stick to any sort of accurate time frame to voluntarily give free coins. I'm personally just glad things like this still go on. More and more I see crypto becoming all the things in the old world which make me sad, and so this giveaway is very refreshing to observe. Thank you for doing this, krogothmanhattan. |
|
|
|
OK guys, I'm running low on xJDCLAMZ vanity addresses again. It's time to reopen the contest. Rules exactly the same as before: Get and build the CLAM-compatible version of vanitygen from here: https://github.com/dooglus/vanitygenThen run this command: oclvanitygen -CP 0257DEAE526EEF77D275447D70F233DCF0DBF50AF0C239AD0C46CE1A6D48849B1F xJDCLAMZ
C for 'compressed', 'P' for 'public key'. The public key means only the person with the corresponding private key (ie. me) will be able to know the actual private key you find. Post the key it finds here, and I'll pay 100 CLAMs to the earliest dated non-edited such post. 100 CLAMs for the first, 50 for the 2nd, 25 for the 3rd, and so on forever, with the reward halving each time. Multiple payouts per user are allowed. I hope I did this right. Used ./vanitygen with the same args. Output: Pattern: xJDCLAMZ Address: xJDCLAMZGCSLgHtDXE7hJK6faxxvWsSwGo PrivkeyPart: LgEtFLo3uaSxH5uY45LYM5zaihY3NhDuRqK6h9RMtUGpWBgzr8F7 UID 324722 on JD |
|
|
|
There are at least two different issues at hand:
1. Is there a default vote? How are unvoting blocks counted?
2. Do we consider a majority as enough? A super-majority? Complete consensus?
Complete consensus is a non-starter, in my opinion.
One can not expect the entire network to vote at all, let alone support ANYTHING.
In that case, have a good day; no development team is needed at all.
The debate about default votes and what is considered a majority are underway at the moment.
I personally believe that a rather long rolling window with "No Change" as the default vote would make the most sense. This allows anyone to propose a petition and over time rally support for that change.
I would also argue that we do not require too large of a majority, lest we get nothing done whatsoever.
Regardless, the specifics haven't been worked out yet.
Only a passing agreement that allowing the network to voice their opinions in a verifiable way is the best, unified way forward.
1. No. Unvoting blocks are unvoting blocks, and should not be counted (either as part of the total, or as default.) Democracy entails involvement, and liberty entails responsibility. 2. Dependent on the issue being voted upon. I suggest a "scale of severity" to weigh issues against, and to determine the "weight" needed to carry said issues. This "weight" could offset the negatives of not having a default -- I think. I have held two jobs where the ultimate goal was elimination of my own position, and people wonder why I prefer self-employment. I would tend to agree with your assessment on the default thing, but for me it comes back to the "digger." If this person's motivation is purely greed; a default vote in this manner would support that position. I think votes should only be counted for those willing to participate. The mouth should be where the money is so to speak IMO.  I absolutely love this idea. If done well it will not only be good for clam, but good for crypto as a whole. Thank the Great CLAM. |
|
|
|
smooth and other "No Change" advocates, Your arguments are persuasive and well thought out. I can see myself making some of the same arguments. Sharpen them and target them for stakeholders. Explain in clear language why it is in THEIR interest to make that choice. Everyone will have a voice as this process continues. If you want a 'benevolent dictator' this may not be the right network for you. That said, I am personally thankful to have you participating and involved It is in the best interest of stakeholders to make the choice for "No Change" because it preserves the integrity of the foundational ideals of clam. Clam was founded as a "democratic" coin with "fair distribution." Deviation from this with no better reason than "self preservation" (read: greed) destroys the integrity of the coin. A coin with no integrity is a dead coin (worthless instead of worth less.) I do not want a "benevolent dictator". I just don't want to see 51% of Clam-holdings be held by greed-based life forms, and the coin be ruined for everyone for their short-term gains. I admire the Clam devs for their actions and behavior during this ordeal, and I do not envy them. I hope to one day be so constituted. A tyranny with open immigration/emigration and a nearby "better" neighbor quickly only tyrannizes themselves.
Yes, fundamentally changing the coin unnecessarily is a bad idea. Further, though this petition process is not binding and serves to inform development, in a way it IS publicly binding.
The results of petitions will be public and transparent.
They will signify a provable sentiment of the stakeholders of CLAM.
In the corporate world, how long does an executive retain their position if they ignore the mandates of shareholders?
If support is established publicly for a change and an alternative client is released which implements that change..
That alternative client, by definition, would likely be adopted.
This is regardless of the "tyranny" of the development team.
It isn't perfect; but, this gives the community a voice without the concern for "shills" and non-stakeholder manipulation.
I can think of no better way to inform development energy and direction.
I would ask that certain decisions require more than a majority to offset the short comings of democracy -- to protect Clam against those who care more for themselves than ideas. Something like a change to the core as is being considered here should be unanimous IMO, or require a two-thirds majority at the very minimum. |
|
|
|
Well, I hope clam stays as it is. I understand that the digger is ruining the value, but it can't last forever. Too much supply too soon was a reality. Sadly, the digger is damaging their own value holdings, maybe he/she doesn't care, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. It's possible that clam may not survive this, but I'm still looking forward to the new client with the "voting" via clamspeech and whatnot.
Let us not allow the tragedy of the commons become the tyranny of the commons. “the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” -John Adams The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project. Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive when the community is not composed entirely of individuals possessing both freedom of thought, and truth of spirit. Such traits exist in a shocking minority in these times. This is the main issue here, and it has troubled me deeply since this matter arose. Navaman is right, but I cannot say why. The teachings of the Church of Reason elude me these days. I am convinced that this is the problem, but I can offer no solution. Even the Bastion of Liberty -- The great Constitutional Republic -- has proven to only be a stop-gap measure. I have no answers, but I do know that we must be very cautious here -- we are playing with things far greater than ourselves. |
|
|
|
What is best online clam wallet? I just do not want to download on my PC.
I use just-dice.com
Such is your opinion, and thank you for sharing it. So far, you and BayAreaCoins are strongly opposed to any changes. Understood. Based on lots of other feedback, others definitely feel differently about it. The 2 of you do not hold Veto decision-making powers here and that will continue to be true no matter how much BayAreaCoins huffs and puffs.
You still haven't answered what's terribly bad about a halvening in May 2016. People are ready to quit the coin because of this digger situation. It's time to find a compromise and make a community decision.
You are correct. I was merely offering my opinion; just as you are. I thought I was offering a compromise with option "f". There is no need IMO to take drastic action without cause. That's the problem with the "halvening". It was never conceived in any of the original code or proposals, nor is it even warranted. Established coins that make fundamental changes for greed-based purposes (or even purposes that could be perceived as such) tend to suffer a slow death soon after; that's history. |
|
|
|
So you'll be voting for No Change then. That's your prerogative. Others may feel differently.
I don't get what's so bad about a halvening at the 2 year mark six months from now.. Especially when there are security risks involved. I don't believe there is any risk of loss of reputation for taking reasonable measures to protect the coin.
No, I'll be voting for no change unless security risks become security threats. We're not there yet, and there's no guarantee that we'll ever be. IMO protecting the coin is paramount, but this does not include its value. We owe it to the coin to let the market determine that aspect. CLAM is not just another shitcoin; let us not treat it as such. |
|
|
|
I guess it goes something like this:
1. We come up with a list of proposals, for example:
a. leave everything as it is
b. disallow all digging
c. some kind of decay in value of undug CLAMs over time
d. CC's very complicated and involved change
e. CC's quick and simple change
f. While 51% attack is not a problem do "a" If 51% attack becomes a problem do "d" if it is ready, or else do "e" until it is ready He gets heated at times. I find that engaging him while he's being like this tends to escalate things.0
In this case I understand his frustration, and I share his passion. The market effects of this dig are unfortunate, but we all know the risks of investing. I remember discussing the big digger topic long before I ever heard of this digger. A free market will correct itself naturally given time. I think it is very important that we remember why we are doing this: More than financial gain; we are trying replace an inherently flawed system with a better one -- a more just one. I think the point becomes moot if we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard than those we seek to usurp. I am a big fan of profit, but tainting our community's reputation is too high a cost for it IMO. We have to do what's best for CLAM. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Sorry, I'm not too sure how I missed that the first time...  |
|
|
|
|
