[ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"

[dooglus]

"Addresses", afterall, are nothing more than a cryptographic public key; despite the community commonly calling them otherwise.
These public keys are assigned to specific users and could be considered much the same as an after-hours drop box.

Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.

I don't see it that way.

Consider this example:

You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you.

I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key.

You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so.

[1715053907]

1715053907

[1715053907]

1715053907

[ajareselde]

"Addresses", afterall, are nothing more than a cryptographic public key; despite the community commonly calling them otherwise.
These public keys are assigned to specific users and could be considered much the same as an after-hours drop box.

Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.

I don't see it that way.

Consider this example:

You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you.

I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key.

You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so.

You are looking it only from one side. One might argue that it's the same thing as sending funds to an escrow; so would it be morally correct for escrow to profit from my funds ?
The time of "claim" was 2014-07-31 btw.

Anyways, it doesn't matter really, since there's nothing we can do about it. All i wanted to say from the start is that it would be sort of better if exchange addresses were
ignored in the CLAM claims. But that's just one man's opinion i guess.

cheers

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

"Addresses", afterall, are nothing more than a cryptographic public key; despite the community commonly calling them otherwise.
These public keys are assigned to specific users and could be considered much the same as an after-hours drop box.

Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.

I don't see it that way.

Consider this example:

You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you.

I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key.

You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so.

The user doesn't owe the exchange money until a purchase is made on the exchange.  Until a purchase is made on the exchange, the BTC deposited at the exchange belong to the user.

[ajareselde]

"Addresses", afterall, are nothing more than a cryptographic public key; despite the community commonly calling them otherwise.
These public keys are assigned to specific users and could be considered much the same as an after-hours drop box.

Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.

I don't see it that way.

Consider this example:

You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you.

I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key.

You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so.

The user doesn't owe the exchange money until a purchase is made on the exchange.  Until a purchase is made on the exchange, the BTC deposited at the exchange belong to the user.

I agree. But on another note, the btc address itself belongs to exchange. And since you need both address and funds in order to receive CLAMS, the fair thing to do would be
to split 50-50. Or like dooglus said - the exchange could make it a PR thing and just share the CLAM with it's users; they make enough as it is imho.

cheers

[dooglus]

The user doesn't owe the exchange money until a purchase is made on the exchange.  Until a purchase is made on the exchange, the BTC deposited at the exchange belong to the user.

Once the user deposits coins to the exchange, the exchange owes the user those coins. The balance in the deposit address is irrelevant. The exchange will probably use the deposited coins very quickly to service the withdrawals of other users.

Sometimes people watch the balance on "their" deposit addresses and panic when the balance unexpectedly drops to zero. The fundamental mistake they are making is to think of the deposit address as being "theirs" at all. It's an address in the exchange's wallet, and the exchange is free to use it however they like.

Imagine someone getting upset when they deposit $20 into their bank account and see the bank give the same $20 bill to some other customer. When you deposit $20, the bank's liability to you grows by $20. But what they do with the individual bill you deposited is none of your business. It's the same with exchanges.

[dre1982]

How big is the chain? My computer is downloading for 2 days.

[ShapeShift.io]

ShapeShift has added a buy/sell feature to the real time market data website CoinCap.io! You can now buy or sell Clams straight from the market data website. Learn more about this here: http://bit.ly/1UVFZ7m

[RHavar]

Unless an exchange specifically enumerated otherwise in their Terms-Of-Service, I think it is reasonable to assume that a customer might have a legal expectation that assets arriving at a cryptographic key assigned to them, be attributed to them.

This is a rather perplexing position to take? A deposit address is quite simply: "Send bitcoins here, so I get them and know it was from you".

One particularly frustrating extension of what you said what a few other altcoin's do. They support bitcoin addresses as well, and users (or developers?) will send $altcoin to one of my deposit addresses. Then they'll go on to demand that I need to credit $altcoin to their account (which I don't support) or send the $altcoin back, and if I don't I'm a scammer. I've never yet sent one of these people their $altcoin back, as doing so would risk my entire HD wallet if a single private key is leaked by incorrect or malicious code, and in general it's just a waste of time.

Or another good example of it doesn't make sense, is this recently happened over at my site:

A user was intending to make a deposit, but still had in their clipboard another users deposit address (to send a tip?) and mistaken sent the funds to an other users deposit address. The facts or timeline wasn't disputed, but the user who was getting the incoming payment believed they were entitled to the money because it went to "their" deposit address.

But I instead manually credited the account of the user who sent the money, rather than the user who's deposit address was mistakenly used. You'll have a really, really hard time convincing me I did the wrong thing or the receiving user has a legal expectation to get that money.

[kingscrown]

guys...
if i make post about CLAMs on http://fuk.io - that goes to 1800 double email subscrived members, my 4,5k+ twitter and rest of socials.... can i count on small CLAMs tip?

asking because due to some failure i have deleted my clams .dat file that had alot...
i wanna promote this but would be cool to get some CLAMs to stack

[djhomeschool]

Love the bribery vibe... I'll post about it if you pay me!

[BayAreaCoins]

guys...
if i make post about CLAMs on http://fuk.io - that goes to 1800 double email subscrived members, my 4,5k+ twitter and rest of socials.... can i count on small CLAMs tip?

asking because due to some failure i have deleted my clams .dat file that had alot...
i wanna promote this but would be cool to get some CLAMs to stack

You can become an affiliate for www.ClamChecker.com.

It is totally free for your users to check for CLAMS and we provide different options for them to dig if they chose not to go the client route (we also provide a link to the Github for the client).

Our affiliate system pays .002 BTC each dig or .1 CLAM each dig (your choice.)  The affiliate pay is sent after each dig has 6 confirmations on it.

Simply type our domain as ClamChecker.com/YOURBTCorCLAMADDRESS.

For more details click the "Bitcoin Talk Thread" button in my signature.

Feel free to message me with any questions and look forward to working with you.

[dooglus]

How big is the chain? My computer is downloading for 2 days.

It's 646000 blocks, and 640 Mb.

You can download a bootstrap.dat file from here to speed up the sync process.

[dooglus]

It is totally free for your users to check for CLAMS and we provide different options for them to dig if they chose not to go the client route (we also provide a link to the Github for the client).

You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee:

    >>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276
    81.884

That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.

[BayAreaCoins]

It is totally free for your users to check for CLAMS and we provide different options for them to dig if they chose not to go the client route (we also provide a link to the Github for the client).

You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee:

    >>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276
    81.884

That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.

Why do I need to mention it when you do such a good job volunteering & the website clearly labels what the diggers can expect?  

You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice.    

That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.

I'm not going to hold my hand on my ass waiting to see you recommend my shit though.  

[dre1982]

How big is the chain? My computer is downloading for 2 days.

It's 646000 blocks, and 640 Mb.

You can download a bootstrap.dat file from here to speed up the sync process.

Thanks. Til which date is the bootstrap? the wallet is now busy with he beginning of July.

[dooglus]

Thanks. Til which date is the bootstrap? the wallet is now busy with he beginning of July.

Click the link in the post you quoted - it tells you there. It's up to about an hour ago.

[dooglus]

You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice.    

I'm not aware of that offer, and didn't know you had a thread. Do you have a link to the offer and the thread?

[BayAreaCoins]

You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice.    

I'm not aware of that offer, and didn't know you had a thread. Do you have a link to the offer and the thread?

No I can't Dean, sorry.  Investigate it on your own.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177619.msg12395188#msg12395188

[dooglus]

You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice.    

I'm not aware of that offer, and didn't know you had a thread. Do you have a link to the offer and the thread?

No I can't Dean.  Investigate it on your own.  You don't even like affiliate programs any ways!

I'm not Dean.

You seemed to be complaining that I didn't mention a promotion which I wasn't aware of. All I've seen is the site itself, where you offer to pay 3.5 CLAM or 0.005 BTC in exchange for 4.6 CLAMs.

You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee:

    >>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276
    81.884

That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.

Your fucking maths off too FYI.  Forgot the affiliate.

Next time you troll me at least have your shit together.

I was calculating the fee for the end user. He gets 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs. That's only 18% of the value.

I'm not trolling you, and my "shit" is "together".

[BayAreaCoins]

You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee:

    >>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276
    81.884

That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.

Your fucking maths off too FYI.  Forgot the affiliate.

Next time you troll me at least have your shit together.

I was calculating the fee for the end user. He gets 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs. That's only 18% of the value.

I'm not trolling you, and my "shit" is "together".

I was thinking if the end user self affiliated because that is what I would do.

If the end user was their own affiliate your "shit" would in fact be "not together" on that math.

I edited my comment because I understood where you were coming from, but I'm glad you grabbed it in a quote so I could point out where I was thinking from.