username: nottheone

Just FYI in case its a problem with latest release. I just downloaded bot, tried to connect to JD account, and it failed. Tried multiple times. Tried to register a new account with unique username and it worked fine, so that got me going. Not sure if this problem affects others or not, but figured you might want to know.

Very interested to see what comes out of the new ownership. Good luck to all.

Does the bot have the ability to run multiple instances on one site and easily manage those?

I would like to run 20+ bots. I do that now with other methods but its a real pain to manage. I know a lot of guys who do similar, or who would like to. If I could manage multiple instances with the same rules from one screen it would be epic.

Virtual machines are not really an option for that quantity of bots.

Well if you were already going to play at a site with 1% house edge and they have no rakeback, this is a great deal. I have over 500 btc wagered at another site... even though my highest balance may have been 10 btc. Wish I could get a rakeback for that!

Well you could take that analogy to mean that. But essentially you are saying that you are not interested in CLAM changing in any way, so if anyone wants to change anything about the coin they need to leave? I get that you have an opinion. But a lot of us really like CLAM and want it to get better. Why start from scratch when you have something amazing already with just some imperfections?


I get this argument, and I'm sure there are many on the side of "stopping digging" that are supporting it purely out of self-interest. However, there are others of us who see it as a way to strengthen CLAM and remove the uncertainty that will haunt this coin forever until changed. If I was voting for stopping digging just for my own wallet I would say lets do it tomorrow. Or how about we invalidate all coins dug after I got mine. But I'm saying nothing like that at all. I'm saying lets have set a date at least 6 months or 1 year in the future and put a block number for a cutoff to stop digging. This will cause a renewed interest in the coin and renewed evangelism as everyone tells their friends to triple check those addresses. Then after that date, no more worries of clam tanking by some previously unknown force. CLAM owners will be able to make their own fate and not have it thrown to the wind.

That's the same kind of attitude as "If you don't like this country, you can get out!"

Why does someone need to leave if they want to make things better?

Well Satoshi's coins are a totally different thing than CLAM's undug coin for a number of reasons. For one, Satoshi's coins are very likely controlled by one person. That one person knew the value of his/her coins all along and had every opportunity to sell some or all. Because these coins have not moved in all this time, it is safe to assume they will never move. Clearly Satoshi does not have access to the coin, or simply has no great need/desire for money. Could it happen? Sure it could. But the risk is quite low considering those facts.

CLAMs undug coins are "maybe" lost? Maybe in the hands of random people who have never heard of CLAM thru all the evangelism and scouring the net trying to get free money by getting private keys? Maybe many are in the hands of a few singular individuals who ran some type of scam/script/exchange/casino where they had tons and tons of funded private keys? We have no idea who owns them, or what the intentions of those unknown people who find them. Again, I loved the initial distribution and thought it did a great job spreading CLAM to the masses in a seemingly fairly way, evangelizing crypto owners, etc. But I think those great effects have now passed and now we are left with just negative effects. Now we have some massive potential supply granted to people on an arbitrary date which may or may not ever see the market, but will be a drag on the market forever. And we are keeping them around for reasons that make no sense to me.




I agree 100%. CLAM is an amazing coin. How much better would it be if we can take away some of the headwinds? All great coins adapt.

The digs are only part of the problem. The potential for the digs also weighs on the coin. The digs add supply which dilutes the value of individual holders (which is fine to a degree, though too quickly causes instability and turns off backers). The potential for big digs will only go away if all the coins are dug, which most of us agree will never happen. But that risk is there and nobody has a plan for it except wait for the supply to balloon enough to devalue the undug supply.

I don't think that's fair. Leaving the distribution out there forever screws all current and future owners of CLAM, not to mention potential buyers/adopters who were not part of the distro. or are turned off because of the distro. risks. Changing it would potentially screw some unknown people in the future who may have undug clams who happened to have balances in BTC/LTC/Doge addresses on the date of the distribution and have not yet heard of CLAM thru the scouring of all the crypto communities hunting for undug clams. The logic of "it hurts someone" can be in both arguments, for or against. But to me, the argument seems like "lets screw everybody who owns clams and who might have bought clams because there could be a few people out there who still might dig up some clams that aren't whale diggers who ran a website/service/script that left them with a cache of funded addresses".

Again, I'm not saying remove digging tomorrow. I'm saying, have a plan to remove it in the future. Set a date, get out the word. It would be the biggest thing to happen to CLAM since the initial distribution or JD switching to CLAM.

There certainly is logic in your argument, and I hope you are pretty accurate. However, the one problem not being factored in is the uncertainty of the undug CLAM. How many people have left CLAM or avoided CLAM after learning of the mega supply that could be unloaded on the market at any time? Sure, there is risk in any currency. But how many people decide the risks with CLAM are just too much? I believe in CLAM, but I think it would be a much easier sell to people if the initial distribution wasn't this huge drag and potential black swan 24/7.

I'm not saying a huge digger will come out tomorrow, or ever again. But the problem is that one can. 10 can. By the end of the day we could see CLAM crash worse than ever before - not because of the CLAM holders who have been supporting the currency, but because of someone discovering a huge cache of undug addresses they had from some experiment they ran, or a web wallet/service. I think the initial distribution added a ton of value to CLAM by being so widespread. But now that distribution is a gun pointed at our head, and nobody knows if its loaded or when it will fire.

That may still encourage people to send micro transactions in bulk to attempt to get more CLAMs, and it doesn't seem to encourage new people to CLAM. It seems more likely people would already have to be aware of CLAM and the new distribution system.

I think the initial distribution worked well. I just wish it had a phase-out built in. I definitely think we should consider fixing that.

I don't think stopping digging is the same as ending block rewards. First of all, block rewards perform a vital function which keeps Bitcoin and the Blockchain going. The CLAM distribution, initially, and even very recently as SuperClam pointed out, has been an aid to the CLAM market, but has very recently become a negative feature - maybe more similar to the Bitcoin blocksize debate.




I agree completely. It is very hard to know. I just think the distribution date (while genius at the time) now looks so arbitrary, and that can be a turnoff to newcomers. I feel like if the distribution was designed today, there would be strong arguments to make it have a limited number of blocks. Perhaps something like the reward for undug CLAM halving every X blocks until phasing out.

Even if we do not stop digging next week, or next month. I would love to see something that puts an end to digging at some point in the future. Even if it were a year from now. That would give plenty of time to get the word out, evangelize, then let CLAM be free of the uncertainty.

The argument I am making is the digger who is an avg BTC/LTC/Doge holder who happens to hear about CLAM for the first time is becoming less and less common. The undug CLAMs are increasingly in large undiscovered or lost caches of keys - controlled by individuals (like people who ran services, casinos, exchanges, bots, etc.). And people don't point out enough (that I've seen anyway) that lost coins sit in this large cloud as well, yet we can never know how many have been lost to the ages. Every time a digger shows up as large as curious (or heaven forbid, larger), we will all pull out these charts showing how huge this undug supply is and remind us of this problem.

I think a lot of people who are thinking about the future diggers like to think of it as a great outreach of CLAM. But I think avg people joining CLAM are not new diggers, but buyers. People who have been evangelized not by the initial distribution, but what the coin and community offer today.

Not sure if troll or what, but feel free to dig up your coins at any time. No one has changed anything about digging and if you do have undug clams (which I highly doubt) then you should be concerned as the rest of us about the future of this currency and get educated on the issues.

I hear this argument all the time, and it is the most puzzling thing to me.

Why can't cryptocurrencies change and adapt? Are we saying this amazing technology is limited by the first thought of the first developers? I'm not saying the developers were wrong. I think the distribution of CLAM was probably the most fair way to distribute a cryptocurrency. But I think had they a chance to do it over, I would imagine it would be tweaked to avoid the problems we have today.

I get that it certainly seems unfair that people who own the currency now would change the rules that affect future owners. And I sympathize with that logic, but I think it's flawed. Who are the future owners of CLAM? Are they "buyers" or diggers? When someone heard about clam 6-8 months ago and asked about it, you could tell them they probably already had some! But now with so many people entering crypto (and with so many having left before), what would that look like? If you tell 100 random BTC/doge/LTC owners today about Clam, how many would have undug clams? I would love to know this number. Whatever it is, I bet it has been dropping steadily every day. Basically, the desired effect of distributing clams fairly to people who have other crypto was accomplished, but now is no longer an effective tool. Undug clams are either lost, or they are cached in large collections of addresses controlled by individuals who haven't realized it yet. And once they do, we have more whale diggers with a huge supply and no interest in holding clams.

Having this super massive cloud of clams that could start pouring into the market at any time hurts holders now, and it will continue to weigh on holders and buyers. Acknowledging the distribution "worked" and checking it off as complete (by limiting or ending future digging at some point), you remove all that uncertainty.

Well I didn't make the petition, but it would dilute the supply which would benefit current owners of the coin and hurt future diggers. If you have 10k clams today, you will be staking 10x more clams. If you have 10k undug clams that you will discover and dig up next year, then your supply has not rising at all while the current owners now have more, meaning your value of clams should be less comparably.

This could have the effect of lowering the price of clams as there would be more supply, however stakeholders would have more clam so that should offset any losses in price. Also, the loss in value to future diggers would help offset some of the price/supply issues caused by the increased staking.

Congrats to doctor! He's been playing with like 10 accounts for months, sometimes up a good bit, sometimes down a good bit. I've thought he busted several times but he always comes back. Hope this means he's happy and ready to cash out!

It's hilarious to read all the skepticism. I guess with all the scams it is wise to be skeptical about anything BTC. Bitdice is one of the larger and more trusted dice sites. Furthermore, this user has been playing for months, with up and down results - sometimes losing quite a bit. I was as shocked as anyone to see his large bets. I think the max I've seen him bet was 10 btc per roll before those. I suspect it was the all-or-nothing last chance. Glad it worked out!

Congrats doc, amazing run!

To me, the initial distribution of CLAMs was brilliant, and maybe the most fair way available to distribute a new cryptocurrency. I think it really served its purpose, but now provides too much risk to the CLAM market. There are many undug clams that sit in large caches controlled by single individuals or companies that run(or previous ran) exchanges or other services. These individuals could dump a large supply on the market at any time if they decide to do so.

I would love to have a vote to let the CLAM owners decide the future of the currency.