 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
|
upon considering the new coin option I would like to present option D: Leave clam as is let nature take its course, if you want to run J-d.com as clam or not is your choice you are the owner you owe nothing to the community as to how you run your site. create a new coin with a new distribution model and either start a fresh site or switch j-d.com to the new coin but do not link anything from clam to the new coin do not try to associate clam to the new coin. This would be the only reasonable approach to a new coin imho as it would not take away from what clam has already has and it would not give people an incentive (free new coins for holding clams at block 73000) to consider clams less valuable. It would also stop most of the whole "saving the majority shareholders / premine" topic
|
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm not reading this correctly but if you do a 1 for 1 swap at block 730k the digger would still possibly have 500+k coins as you do not know what he's doing with them once they move to polo or jd.
See a couple of posts up - I wasn't considering a "swap" at all. I was considering having the initial distribution of the new coin be such that everyone has the same as the amount of already-moved CLAM they had at that block. Coins which hadn't moved since the initial CLAM distribution wouldn't feature in the new coin's blockchain. And so "the digger" would only have the 38% of his 500k that he moved already, and the next generation of large diggers would have nothing. The idea being that since some people want digging to stop and others want it left alone, we need a 2nd coin in which digging has stopped. For those who want digging left as it started, there's CLAM. For people who want it stopped, there's the other coin. Again, it's just an idea someone brought up. So far I've heard nothing against it other than that "it's a bad idea". But is it? And if so, why so? I admit using the term swap was poor judgement I do know the people will hold both coins but is it fair to say this is just an idea? you have already taken a snapshot, you had mention a new coin weeks ago in JD chat "cloogs". It seems to me its more than just an idea you seem well prepared to execute. It does not bother me either way as free <X> coins always fit in my business model perfectly but I can't imagine the average investor being thrilled about the idea. |
|
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm not reading this correctly but if you do a 1 for 1 swap at block 730k the digger would still possibly have 500+k coins as you do not know what he's doing with them once they move to polo or jd. So what's to stop him from continuing the so called "malicious market manipulation" of the new coin. Sure he does not have the ability to dig more but even if he's holding a fraction of the coin he's still going to continue making investors butthurt and QQ endlessly about how he's a total dick for taking free money
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty against the idea of making any changes to how the coin works.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Have you been to Cryptospout recently? Come check out the clam blowout https://cryptospout.com/blowout/clam_blowout.html. A refined Crypto ponzi investment operation that offers something a little more legitimate to quick return coin investments. By creating a staking pool from the start and limiting maximum investments to a 10th of the staking pool size 5% staking pool size. I've tried to ensure that all investments are returned in a relatively quick time frame and minimize risk. I would love to hear some feedback on this  |
|
|
|
So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?
To be clear, I'm not trying to push any particular change to the rules. I have lots of people asking me to stop CLAM dying, and lots of others saying to leave it alone. You can't please all the people, but you can let the community as a whole vote and implement the most popular choice. CLAM is a community coin after all, so that seems like the fairest way to do things.
If you are against the idea of having the most popular idea be implemented, why is that?
I'm pretty against the idea of making any changes to how the coin works. Clam is far from dying those who are saying it are just butthurt the price dumped (why did these people hold when it was announced early someone was digging and dumping endlessly on polo if the price is what mattered to them?). The truth is with the price being lower more people are playing with clam either on JD or not. You can easily see this with all the new names on JD making larger than average bets. If you guys don't like the way clam is working jump ship and move to another shitcoin don't try to manipulate the core rules to the coin just to please some bagholders |
|
|
|
|
Did you fix the bugs in the codebase? you can see a number of issues on the scripts github.
|
|
|
|
Well a screenshot really is too easy to fake  If you are willing to escrow the funds it would be more viable surely. are you selling it for 267 or 330? |
|
|
|
|
Are you a faucet junkie? Tired to receiving multiple dust transactions? you can now set your own custom withdrawal thresholds for my faucets.
|
|
|
|
|
to be honest you should just request a return address from the depositor instead of reusing an old address, it would allow people to send coins from one wallet and receive with another plus you wouldn't have to do something as gross as determining the return address from the outputs.
|
|
|
|
I do not see any icash faucet ?
Correct, I do not currently support an icash faucet. |
|
|
|
|
Stablecoin has been added.
|
|
|
|
Nice list!
Just two things:
Lack of information about reward ..
How can we find out who won the hourly / daily deluge?
The box on the right of each page that has announcements in the first tab contains the details you are looking for |
|
|
|
|
More faucets have been added, and daily giveaways (deluges) have been started!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I have been having an issue with opal daemon shutting down without any information being printed in the debug log to help trouble shoot it. Does opalcoin have some debug level launch flags?
|
|
|
|
|
yeah thats the problem, its not sprout its spout :p
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I am interested in purchasing CAT, I am curious do you have an option to run the application in headless mode?
|
|
|
|
I started an automated node creation service for altcoins which can be found here: https://cryptospout.com/cryptonode.php It provides the ability to choose a vps location, add configuration option, and deploy within minutes. I have been adding supported coins every fewdays but if you need a coin thats not in the list you can send me a message and I can add it. |
|
|
|
|
