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

[rychallenge]

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

Just the clam chatbox...because that is all that i see here.
I hope that nothing changes, I don't hold much clam for it to matter but that if that was me holding all that potential clam and i found out a year after the decision was made I would be MAD

Anyone entertaining Doog and his idea of voting to change something that was known before you got into it, is an absolute retard.

You knew the clams were distributed to address's on a certain date, you knew there was 1001 scammy casinos in operation at that time. You knew there were exchanges large enough to claim a lot of clam.

You made the mistake of buying into an Alt coin that has these parameters. And perhaps you gambled on a large percentage of clams not being claimed, and lived in false hope that the price will forever be high. But instead of facing the music, and rolling with the punches, you think you should now change it because you are losing some value.  

This entire vote for change and the stupid arguments put forward, proves to me that this forum has a collective IQ of 22.

Absolutely agree... this should have been thought about before hand, INSTEAD of changing it midway through the party.
It's to late now.

[gaba]

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.

I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

[Noolz39]

All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.

+1

[gjhiggins]

Mr. Higgins is much more qualified to follow up, but IMO the thrust of his post is not "plebiscite", but rather "central authority".

Indeed, that was my intention. And, after giving the issue more thought ... from my perspective there are two core real-world issues with profound implications for the selection and development of operational tactics and strategy:

i) the absence of a hierarchy of control is real, as are the consequences - dooglus' description of one possible future is valid.
ii) there is no inherent notion of identities or individual accounts which makes it impossible to distinguish reliably between human and machine agents.

My take on it is: technology has produced an as-yet-largely-unexplored solution to a huge problem that's been plaguing us as a species since forever, i.e. co-ordinating our behaviour and for which we are currently using a wildly inefficient and trivially corruptible solution (a hierarchy of power projection developed in response to limitations of communication). Advances in technology have removed any geographical barrier to exchanging pleasantries with anyone, anywhere; we are now broadly free to co-ordinate ourselves.

This is completely unprecedented and clearly many people in central governments around the world hold strongly negative perceptions of the potential consequences (the weakening of control) of allowing people to communicate freely amongst themselves.

In this broad topic area, my cross-disciplinary background gives me some comparative advantage in terms of having a wide variety of sources to draw from. For example, I've gained some benefit (in terms of clarity) from comparing the attributes of a Teal organisation with the attributes of an altcoin (details: Reinventing organisations).

The insight I gained is:

a community of cryptocurrency users naturally forms a Teal organisation because it is constrained to do so by the inherent characteristics of the implementation

It's nowhere near a perfect fit; Laloux follows Ken Wilber's original formulation of integral theory (done back in the 1960s) in which a hierarchy is viewed as “natural” and, ideally, “healthy”. That rather questionable assumption of the inevitability of a hierarchy of control persists even at the (developmentally) higher organisational levels of Turquoise and Indigo, so there's only so much that can be reasonably adapted from the Teal organisational model.

This week, I 'ave been mostly been ... revisiting Herbert Marcuse and looking deeper into the notion of “collective intelligence”.

I guess my point is that we've been precipitated into a brave new world; there are a number of entirely new problems to recognise, characterise, analyse and resolve. Perhaps it's all a bit too new and too demanding for people to handle successfully on a collective basis --- and 2500+ mostly-failed altcoins suggests that might well be the case. We'll just have to see.

Cheers

Graham

[Hippie Tech]

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.

I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100

In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

[gjhiggins]

... will go along with whatever "the official release" does ...

I'm questioning the advisability of the notion of “official” in this context. What are y'all gonna do if a personal crisis obliges Deb to suddenly and completely disengage? In essence, any claim of “official” simply weakens decentralisation and renders the operation of the coin more vulnerable to interference and/or disruption. An ecosystem, if it can be achieved, would be more usefully robust and as is common with group activity, the more raucous, the more useful so the vigorous expression of (well-supported) dissenting opinion is a good sign.

Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best.

Bitcoin's running two forks currently (or was until recently)  and multiple forks don't pose any theoretical issues AFAIK, so what remains is “just” a matter of discovering what passes for practicality.

The point of having a provably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess.

That would be an economist's definition of “fair”. My perspective is that this is a sociological issue with a very different definition of fair.

One insight that I've had confirmed by this discussion: the functioning of any altcoin community is seriously hampered by the absence of a reliable mirror.

What do you mean by 'mirror' here? I'm sorry, but you lost me.

It's a notion pertinent to the social psychology of the context, I made a mistake in mentioning it. Basically, I was just hand-wavily referring to a means of promulgating the social mores of the group. Identity cannot develop sanely in isolation; this is true for the individual and for a social group. For any significant degree of social cohesion to be achieved, group members need to know how “a group member” is typically supposed to think/behave in order that they may compare themselves against this norm, this is the same factor that lies at the root of pluralistic ignorance and to a degree is in play in this discussion. Just observing the lacuna, thassall.

Cheers

Graham

[jaysabi]

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.

Basically, changing the rules now seems unfair. Even if your intentions are to act in the best interest of the coin, your actions will artificially benefit a group, and this cannot be avoided and it is not fair. On top of that, by changing the rules of operation, you're violating the trust of the coin on the most fundamental level. The founding rules of the coin should be treated as sacrosanct. I understand the difficulty of this position because a great asset of the coin was the "fair" distribution model, and clearly an unintended consequence of the way it was implemented is this digging currently going on. It is regrettable, but still, the total potential diggable addresses has always been known. The total potential diggable CLAMs has always been known. Anyone who bought CLAMs without taking into account the risk that one day the undug CLAMs would be dug has no one to blame but themselves. The price never fully reflected the inflationary risk of the coin, and now that it is, some people want to change the rules. But everyone knew or had the ability to know this was a possibility. And if you didn't know, you had no businesses investing in a coin you didn't understand.

[smooth]

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.

I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100

In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

I looked back and I don't see anything egregious about that change. In the lottery era the rewards were usually 0.1 per block but occasionally higher. When the change to a flat 1/block was made, the claim from SuperClam was that the average under the lottery was very close to that. I did not mathematically test this claim but roughly speaking it doesn't look incredibly far off to me.

Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.

In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.

If someone has different information I'm interested in hearing it.

[AltcoinScamfinder]

But, how about this for an idea? And it's just a thought I had, not a plan I intend to put into action. Comments appreciated!

There's my comments.

Way sick of this fucking conversation.

5 posts in a row, almost a new record even for this delusional kid.

[dooglus]

CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100

In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

The post you linked to is where the devs turned off the exploitable 'lottery' staking system after discovering it was being exploited. At that point CLAM was very cheap and stayed so for another couple of months. Nobody had (or has) a strange hold on the coin supply. You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.

As gaba says, the big increase in the price of CLAM corresponds directly with the launch of Just-Dice, and came 2 months after the hard fork you linked to.

I've no idea what an eduffield is, and suspect you are just trolling. But I thought I should point out the errors in your post anyway.

... will go along with whatever "the official release" does ...

I'm questioning the advisability of the notion of “official” in this context.

Of course. That's why I put it in quotes.

What are y'all gonna do if a personal crisis obliges Deb to suddenly and completely disengage?

I guess you mean Creative or Xploited. Deb doesn't have anything to do with CLAM other than being a chat mod at Just-Dice.

In essence, any claim of “official” simply weakens decentralisation and renders the operation of the coin more vulnerable to interference and/or disruption. An ecosystem, if it can be achieved, would be more usefully robust and as is common with group activity, the more raucous, the more useful so the vigorous expression of (well-supported) dissenting opinion is a good sign.

We do have a notion of "the official CLAM website", "the CLAM github", and this "official CLAM thread", which is moderated by one of the creators of CLAM. Nobody is under any illusions about the transitory nature of such "officialdom". It's a consensus coin, and if the creators find themselves on the wrong side of the consensus then I'm sure they understand the implications. Perhaps it would be better not to use the O-word, but doing so doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best.

Bitcoin's running two forks currently (or was until recently)  and multiple forks don't pose any theoretical issues AFAIK, so what remains is “just” a matter of discovering what passes for practicality.

Bitcoin's two forks are currently identical in terms of which blocks they accept and so there's no issue (yet). If someone was to create and publish a CLAM fork which refuses to accept any transactions that spend or stake an output from block 9999 or earlier (those being the initial distribution outputs) after block 730k (say) (that being a couple of days from now) then we end up with two incompatible chains very quickly. Poloniex will be running one fork, Cryptsy will be running the other, I'll be able to send my coins to both exchanges and sell them twice. That's more than just a theoretical issue.

The point of having a provably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess.

That would be an economist's definition of “fair”. My perspective is that this is a sociological issue with a very different definition of fair.

Yes. Only allowing people who hold coins to vote about the future of the coin could be argued to be unfair to those who didn't yet discover the coin. But how else do we make it fair? There are billions of people who didn't discover the coin.

I saw an argument made recently that "I already sold my coins because the price keeps going down, so I wouldn't get a vote and that isn't fair". I would argue that if your solution to solving the problem caused by the massive inflationary pressure is to dump your coins onto others until the situation improves then you don't get to have a say in how to improve the situation. You've made it someone else's problem by selling your coins. Let those who bought them off you have their say, since they are directly involved in the outcome.

One insight that I've had confirmed by this discussion: the functioning of any altcoin community is seriously hampered by the absence of a reliable mirror.

What do you mean by 'mirror' here? I'm sorry, but you lost me.

It's a notion pertinent to the social psychology of the context, I made a mistake in mentioning it. Basically, I was just hand-wavily referring to a means of promulgating the social mores of the group. Identity cannot develop sanely in isolation; this is true for the individual and for a social group. For any significant degree of social cohesion to be achieved, group members need to know how “a group member” is typically supposed to think/behave in order that they may compare themselves against this norm, this is the same factor that lies at the root of pluralistic ignorance and to a degree is in play in this discussion. Just observing the lacuna, thassall.

You sure know some good words. Thanks for posting some of them.

Basically, changing the rules now seems unfair.

Who is it unfair to? The rules wouldn't change overnight. Anyone with coins to dig would have time to dig and secure them.

Even if your intentions are to act in the best interest of the coin, your actions will artificially benefit a group, and this cannot be avoided and it is not fair.

The group being benefited is "all CLAM holders". The group losing out is those who didn't bother claiming their free CLAMs in the 18 months that CLAM has been running. They either don't know or don't care about their free CLAM. Is it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time?

On top of that, by changing the rules of operation, you're violating the trust of the coin on the most fundamental level. The founding rules of the coin should be treated as sacrosanct.

The rules have changed several times already, so it's too late to hold them sacrosanct.

Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.

In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.

I think he's only trolling for attention, but even if the rate of staking did change that doesn't create a "strangle hold" on coin supply.

Staking rewards everyone equally and should drive down the price as it increases the supply. Buying X% of the coin supply should cost the same no matter what the staking return is.

I was going to address BAC's most recent posts today, but he has asked me not to, so I will respect his wishes.



I think it is a shame that he doesn't want to be involved in these discussions.

[smooth]

Only allowing people who hold coins to vote about the future of the coin could be argued to be unfair to those who didn't yet discover the coin. But how else do we make it fair? There are billions of people who didn't discover the coin.

The way to make if fair between current and future participants is by not making changes the the fundamental economic structure at all. That creates an equivalence between people who are involved now and people who are involved in the future in that neither get to vote. This in turn avoids future participants feeling disadvantaged (and thus discouraged from participating) because they weren't around when important economic decisions are made. It also avoids people not wanting to invest as small participants because they risk getting screwed over by larger participants voting their own interests.

As you point out, you can't make it fair by allowing both current and future participants to vote, so you make it fair by allowing neither to vote.

The sensible way to address not liking something about the fundamental economic design a coin is to create a new coin. Use the claim method to preserve the existing distribution if you think the existing distribution is a good starting point. That has the same economic effect as forking the chain except that you avoid having transactions that confirm on either or both chains, leading to chaos.

This, BTW, includes the idea of whether changes can be made by voting. If you want a coin where the design states that coin holders vote by balance on future changes then create one, but put that in the design from the start, so again everyone is entering on equal terms.

[wry]

Since I don't think the rules should be changed at this point I guess I'm also opposed to having a vote on changing the parameters for the coin.

Also, doesn't this help the dig whale?  Didn't he dig his coins as soon as he imported his btc/ltc/doge wallets into the clam client?

Also, curtailing digging would seem to work strongly against clam adoption.  If the coin is ever going to be more than a JD token, and I like JD a lot, it seems that the ability for people to get their free clams should be preserved.

Maybe that is a solution, dooglus forks clam and the ownership is one doogcoin per clam that is visible to the network.  Clam can go on to maybe become successful via future adoption, and everyone's doogcoins increase in value as people flock to invest and play on JD.

I'm sure that's nuts, but it doesn't require a vote nor changing the rules for the coin.

Regardless, thanks and good luck.

[jaysabi]

Basically, changing the rules now seems unfair.

Who is it unfair to? The rules wouldn't change overnight. Anyone with coins to dig would have time to dig and secure them.

Even if your intentions are to act in the best interest of the coin, your actions will artificially benefit a group, and this cannot be avoided and it is not fair.

The group being benefited is "all CLAM holders". The group losing out is those who didn't bother claiming their free CLAMs in the 18 months that CLAM has been running. They either don't know or don't care about their free CLAM. Is it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time?

On top of that, by changing the rules of operation, you're violating the trust of the coin on the most fundamental level. The founding rules of the coin should be treated as sacrosanct.

The rules have changed several times already, so it's too late to hold them sacrosanct.

These are all fair points, but in answer to your question, yes I do think it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time. In this instance, it's only being done because the price has been hammered and people don't like the concept of one person having this much influence over the price, but let me ask this: if all the coins being dug were by individuals (as was intended originally) and the price was this low, would everyone still be going on about cutting off the digging supply? If yes, then you're violating the "free and fair" way the coins were intended to be distributed, and if no, then it seems you're just reacting to the fact that you don't like that the potential supply and actual supply are nearing parity when you got used to the concept that they never would. And if that's the case, then I go back to the argument that the potential supply has always been known and should have been a factor in your risk analysis. The fact that it wasn't is essentially a case of taking on too much risk and now seeking a bailout when that risk exposure turned on you. Wasn't the promise of crypto that such banking manipulations wouldn't be possible? If you could speak a little to this notion, I'm interested to hear. I can be convinced if the argument is compelling, but right now, this appears no different than a case of special interests changing the rules for their benefit, like the banks do all the time.

[Hippie Tech]

https://i.imgur.com/iUvl9Xu.png

Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.

I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100

In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

I looked back and I don't see anything egregious about that change. In the lottery era the rewards were usually 0.1 per block but occasionally higher. When the change to a flat 1/block was made, the claim from SuperClam was that the average under the lottery was very close to that. I did not mathematically test this claim but roughly speaking it doesn't look incredibly far off to me.

Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.

In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.

If someone has different information I'm interested in hearing it.

Nice follow through on that eduffield btw.

The DRK/DASH shills used the very same tactics when it came to down playing concerns, skewing the facts and/or ignoring the obvious.

You somehow missed the fact that the reward reduction was much greater than 200x. "In short"... ANY reward reduction is a big fucking deal and Dooglus' "You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.", makes for some stanky icing on this Clammy shitcoin cake.

[SuperClam]

https://i.imgur.com/iUvl9Xu.png
Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.
All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.
I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100
In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

I looked back and I don't see anything egregious about that change. In the lottery era the rewards were usually 0.1 per block but occasionally higher. When the change to a flat 1/block was made, the claim from SuperClam was that the average under the lottery was very close to that. I did not mathematically test this claim but roughly speaking it doesn't look incredibly far off to me.
Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.
In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.
If someone has different information I'm interested in hearing it.

Nice follow through on that eduffield btw.
The DRK/DASH shills used the very same tactics when it came to down playing concerns, skewing the facts and/or ignoring the obvious.
You somehow missed the fact that the reward reduction was much greater than 200x. "In short"... ANY reward reduction is a big fucking deal and Dooglus' "You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.", makes for some stanky icing on this Clammy shitcoin cake.

Stake inflation was made linear and slightly increased after the update you reference.

Your claims are not only plainly inaccurate; they are the exact opposite of what occurred.


I have no qualm with on-chain verifiable voting, assuming:

• the vote is a count of blocks staked,
• a vast majority of the network is running a client which implements the voting feature,
• the window over which the vote is counted is long enough to allow smaller stakers to have a chance to get a block and thus contribute.

This vote of course, by definition of how the network operates, can only inform the direction of development.
dooglus, xploited, creativecuriosity, and anyone else working on project are volunteers and can obviously not make any promises.
However, assuming a solid reliable vote from the staking community and the ability to get a working pull-request/code-change together that shouldn't be a problem.

Further, I would not like the more complicated time-based, per-byte-per-block proposal included in the vote.
This concept was put together before the digger and is not designed to "solve" that "issue" - though, it would mildly affect it over the long-term.


I would personally caution the community against fear and rash decisions.
Everyone who is a stake holder in CLAM should have their opinions (if respectfully submitted) considered.
The worst possible outcome from all of this would be to alienate our brothers and sisters who are contributing and helping with the project or community.


I have had a busy week (month).
I intend to be around over the next couple days more vigorously.
If you can't tell by perusing the thread history, I despise moderation/censorship.
Last warning to keep it productive and on-topic in the thread.

ANY ad hominem(personal) attacks will be deleted when they are seen.

[dooglus]

Nice follow through on that eduffield btw.
The DRK/DASH shills used the very same tactics when it came to down playing concerns, skewing the facts and/or ignoring the obvious.
You somehow missed the fact that the reward reduction was much greater than 200x. "In short"... ANY reward reduction is a big fucking deal and Dooglus' "You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.", makes for some stanky icing on this Clammy shitcoin cake.

Stake inflation was made linear and slightly increased after the update you reference.

Your claims are not only plainly inaccurate; they are the exact opposite of what occurred.

OK, I see what he's saying: stopping the lottery reduced the reward from 1000 CLAMs to 1 CLAM per block, so that means the lottery system was like a pre-mine.

Maybe this chart can help show the reality of the situation. Pay attention to how the green supply curve changed when the lottery staking system ended on October 25th last year:



Hint: stopping the lottery caused the supply to increase much more quickly than before.

If he spent more time attempting to communicate his confused point and less time trying to think up new ways of insulting people's icing preferences we could have resolved this little misunderstanding much more quickly.

[nicolaennio]

I am trying to follow the discussion. Some opinions that I have (disclaimers: I own clams held in JD):

- Are CLAM holders concerned about the whale digger? I think they shouldn't. It's not a surprising fact that a whale digger arrived and the staking of clams is proceeding quite quickly, at least at the same rate as the whale is digging (even though nobody know why).

-  Are CLAM holders concerned about the "low" price? I hope nobody here really thinks to be able to modify the price (like 'pumping' it) with some smart decision about the CLAM protocol, the market will always self-correct and these kind of bubbles are common to any cryptocoin anyway.

- Are CLAM holders concerned about future diggings? Since the rate of staking new coins is quite high, in two or three years new dug wallets *should* be irrelevant to the overall economy.

I personally think that currently we have another more important problem: staking is going very fast (we already have more staked coins than dug ones) and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.

[andulolika]

I am trying to follow the discussion. Some opinions that I have (disclaimers: I own clams held in JD):

- Are CLAM holders concerned about the whale digger? I think they shouldn't. It's not a surprising fact that a whale digger arrived and the staking of clams is proceeding quite quickly, at least at the same rate as the whale is digging (even though nobody know why).

-  Are CLAM holders concerned about the "low" price? I hope nobody here really thinks to be able to modify the price (like 'pumping' it) with some smart decision about the CLAM protocol, the market will always self-correct and these kind of bubbles are common to any cryptocoin anyway.

- Are CLAM holders concerned about future diggings? Since the rate of staking new coins is quite high, in two or three years new dug wallets *should* be irrelevant to the overall economy.

I personally think that currently we have another more important problem: staking is going very fast (we already have more staked coins than dug ones) and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.

i think that is good with the staking this way, it will be too little if the whole supply was dug so we can now have like a gold fever of staking. So in the future things will change and most of the profit (on jd) will be again by investing not by staking.

[Noolz39]

price will be drop and drop

[BayAreaCoins]

After a day of thinking and spending the afternoon in the William J. Clinton Presidential Center I think I have an idea that will make everyone equally unhappy that will be the best for CLAM.

Perhaps we could do a halfing for both the digs and the stakes at the same % for each with both of them ending eventually in x years (?)

Y'alls big concerns are digs until the digs stop (end in sight) -  Addressed

My big concerns are never ending staking (no end in sight) (reference my Dogecoin freak out if you so wish) -  Addressed

How do people on both sides of the fence feel about that?