Sorry for the giant post, but there's too much to reply to here...
Would the rest of the coins parameters stay the same. like block times, staking rates etc...
I don't see why not.
Could someone post an updated bootstrap?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9772191#msg9772191 is always quite up to date. I just updated it a few minutes ago.
Yes that is correct. Of course, you can use whatever distribution method you want for a new coin. I just suggested that mirroring the existing distribution of CLAM is superior to forking the network in an uncontrolled manner where transactions will confirm on one chain or both, causing chaos.
Agreed. Having two incompatible client versions on the same blockchain seems like a recipe for disaster. Better to use a new blockchain for the new coin.
Maybe that is the outcome, in which case so be it. Talk is cheap and if nobody really (as in putting money behind it) values the ideas on which CLAM is founded after all, then it will indeed go to zero. At the same time, perhaps there is some demand for a coin that is is distributed to holders of three widely held cryptos and not just the roughly 3% of holders of those coins who have dug CLAMs until now and that happens to be used on one well-known dice site, and in that case the original CLAM won't go to zero. I don't think we can really just make up the answer without actually doing the experiment.
Making a new coin and leaving CLAM rules unchanged does seem the fairest way to proceed. Then the people who didn't hear about CLAM yet will still have CLAM waiting for them when they finally do hear about it.
Maybe as BAC suggested we should take any discussion of "doogcoin" off this thread, like how discussion of "Bitcoin XT" was moved away from BTC forums - since it really isn't anything to do with CLAM, other than using a snapshot of the CLAM blockchain for its initial distribution.
I took a snapshot of the JD database just as CLAM block 730000 was staked. As the first multiple of 10k after the idea was proposed this seems as good a point as any. Having the snapshot point be in the past prevents any manipulation by people buying CLAM just to increase their initial allocation of "doogcoin". I checked the Poloniex charts and it appears there was no unusual trading before that point.
However! For PoS coins this isn't the case. We buy 1000 CLAMs, and it's 0.1% of the 1 million total money supply, say. If there's no digging, and only staking, then a year later another 500k CLAMs have been staked. But we have staked 500 of that 500k, since we are 0.1% of the staking weight.
This argument is false because it assumes that everyone stakes all the time. Smaller holders aren't necessarily going to stake because it isn't worth the trouble. Or they will stake in a few (or as we see now, one) large pools which catastrophically centralizes the network, and transfers (likely further concentrates in practice) wealth to the pool operator via fees.
If everyone stakes, everyone effectively 'stands still'. If some stake and some don't, the stakers get richer and the non-stakers get poorer. That's how we incentivize people to stake. You're correct about staking fees having an effect too. I am surprised no service was able to compete with JD's 10% staking fee. I left it that high to encourage competition. It should be easy to undercut JD and still make a profit. Was it you offering 0% fee staking? How is that going? Was there much uptake?
People who are actively using the coin in a transactional manner (to the extent such a rumored mythical creature actually exists) also do not stake because the network rules don't allow it.
The rules don't allow an output to stake if it has been involved in a transaction in the last 4 hours. If you keep your outputs split up then you can transact in CLAM without damaging your staking return much at all.
In this way staking is NOT the same as the inflation we see in USD, BTC, or DOGE, since the newly created coins are shared out to existing holders in proportion to their holdings.
It does bear a lot of resemblance to USD. Some are able to invest and keep up with inflation but others are not. The groups largely mirror the ones described above.
Investment is a gamble that can be done in any currency. Staking isn't. I don't see how USD inflation (diluting the buying power of all but the closest to the source of money creation) resembles CLAM staking (rewarding all stakers proportionally).
and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.
but it shouldn't. Staking is "running to stay still".
It likely does, for exactly the reason you state: Staying still is better than
falling behind.
The choice is between "running to stay still" or "not holding CLAMs to stay still" seems about equal. By selling all your CLAMs you're not "falling behind" (unless whatever you sold them for isn't doing well).
What about capping/limiting the amount of CLAMs which can be digged daily (example: no more than 200 CLAMS per day)?
This would require changing the consensus rules, and people have already said they don't think it's fair to do that. And how do we enforce the "randomness" rule? Whoever stakes the first block of each day (whenever we define a day as starting) gets to pick whichever dig transactions they like. There will likely be more than 200 CLAMs worth in the mempool, because there will be a big backlog. I guess people would start paying higher fees to get their digs mined before other people's, so a fee market would develop, with the lucky first staker of each day having a mini "lottery win"...
I can simply run two different instances like I did with the original Just-Dice and Doge-Dice sites.
If you do that will u give investors choice to trade their clam for same amount moneysupply of doogcoin?
I don't see how I could stop them trading one for the other, but I couldn't set the price. The market would have to do that. That's like asking whether I would let people trade their BTC for the same amount of DOGE, or whatever. They're two separate currencies.
Your starting amount of the new coin would be the same as your amount of CLAM at the snapshot block though, if that's what you mean.
If you do that will u give investors choice to trade their clam for same amount moneysupply of doogcoin?
Not for everyone of course. Lol. Only if your JD user ID is less than 50000. Or invested amount exceeds 4K clams. Anyway you will have a time (1-2 days) to buy some more clams and get your chance to jump on that train.
None of that makes any sense. The aim is to be fair to everyone. If you have any real suggestions I'm sure we'd like to hear them.
I believe he stated it would be a 1 for 1 swap for all clams not in the original distribution blocks, Which means if your clams have already been dug, you would get 1 doogcoin per.
This is all just hypothesis at this point. He is just throwing out ideas for consideration.
Yes, and yes. Just trying to come up with a way of satisfying as many people as possible. All constructive suggestions are very welcome.
mm... Theres nothing like the fresh smell of ponzi pushers in the morning...
What are you talking about? How is this anything like a Ponzi? If you have anything worthwhile to contribute I'm sure people would be happy to hear it.
Maybe it is possible to have a provable fair onchain lottery with the bitcoin scripting system. I, nor any one else looking at the problem was able to figure out how.
Did you see rhavar's new 'pevpot.com' site? It's a pro
bvably fair on-chain BTC lottery, and uses the hash of a particular block in the future to decide who wins. This seems at first glance like it would be exploitable by the miner of that block - if the miner was playing the lottery, and the prize was big enough, it would be +EV for the miner to withhold any block he mined which didn't cause him to win the lottery.
pevpot closes that exploit by making the provably fair calculation take a long time to run - so the miner can't tell whether his block causes him to win or not until after his block would have been orphaned if he waits to find out.
I'm wondering if a similar scheme could be applied to the CLAM staking lottery.
They created the problem and are now "working it" so that you and the others on this ponzi-go-round will react in such a way so that their solution becomes palattable.
Who is "they" and what problem did they create?
The powers that be/ruling elite have been playing this game for centuries.
Are you putting me in that class? I'm a ruling elite now?
It sounds like you're referring to the
Problem Reaction Solution system. Is that right?
How do you see CLAM fitting into that?
I'll give you guys a few more hours... maybe a day.. to see through dooglus' BS.
I am trying to come up with ideas that might be acceptable, and asking for feedback. That's not BS, it's how problems get solved.
It is possible to make the client counting the amount of CLAMS digged in the past 24 hours. If it exceeds certain limit then trigger DoS in mempool to reject newer digs, or give the diggers an option to proceed with a significantly higher tx fee.
If you're talking about a change to the client without a change to the consensus rules, then the digger can simply modify his own client to ignore your change and stake blocks containing his own dig transactions.
Yes this is also what I prefer. If the diggers insist to proceed then he will need to pay a lot more to existing stakers/holders.
Don't forget, the digger is an "existing holder". He can decide not to broadcast his high-fee dig transactions, and to only stake them himself - so he would get to collect the high fees from himself.
Dooglus can you make a fast decision so we all can know and not more uncertainty what will happens.
Just make a decison.
It's not really my decision to make. I could go ahead and make a new coin, but both xploited and Creative have said they don't like that idea.
I can say that I won't stop Just-Dice accepting CLAM for as long as the site continues to pay for its expenses.
