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

[allejuppa]

I agree, that would be the easiest thing, no more digging after a specific block.
If this is not an option, burning clams for doog seems reasonable as well.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[thefix]

I agree, that would be the easiest thing, no more digging after a specific block.
If this is not an option, burning clams for doog seems reasonable as well.

The problem is that many people vehemently oppose any changes to Clam coin and others want things to go back to the way it was before the digger.

I think this solution gives the two groups what they want without any changes to Clam


Of course we need a way to vote on this and we will need more details

[danonthehill]

I find this whole discussion bizarre. Forking a coin because of one large holder (digger)?

Is this a long term project? It's thanks to this digger that I was able to buy clam.  If you wait a few months then his coins will be redistributed.  Yes there will be price drops, but it nearly always bounces.  BTW clam like XRP ETH BTS XMR LTC is towards the end of a massive downtrend, with Clam being closer to the end of this trend than many of the others.  Price would have dropped to retest these levels without the digger. (zoom out to max on the chart).

There massive confusion being exploited in Polo troll box around this. A future snapshot would be acceptable and there are precedents.

[avgeca]

are you having all these discussions just to find a morally somehow acceptable solution for fucking over the one big digger?  

that's not ok guys.

I'm also missing the voting option for "pulling the plug". projects fail sometimes, that's life.

[smooth]

@dooglus, did I get the "plan" right?
I just bought a few CLAMs and (because we are past block 730k already) I will get nothing for it?
Instead I stay on an abandoned chain where most CLAMS in circulation have no value at all because people already moved to a different coin?
I don't think that this will work out.

Any serious investor will lose faith entirely. And early adopters are once again taking the advantages.

Pretty sure all the coins on Polo or any exchange would be valid for the new distribution.
But some clarification on all that would be good.

I hope so, because anything else would be a ripoff!
Lets say we both have 50k Clams on Poloniex it may happen that we get different amounts of Doogcoin depending on which coin of ours was deposited after and which one before block 730000.
And the funny thing is, we have no control about it whatsoever.

As I suggested earlier, the cutoff should be announced well in advance so people have an opportunity to position themselves accordingly. For example, if an exchange has not committed to honor the distribution then you can withdraw from it.

I think the intention is to go back before the digger had such an impact on the coin. How would you deal with the digger getting the rest of his coins and throwing them in a wallet before the cutoff date?

You don't, if you want to be even remotely fair about it. "The digger" has the same legitimate ownership of his CLAMs as anyone else.

Does anyone really think that it would be anything other than a joke to target (primarily) one particular person to have their CLAMs invalidated?

I have a hard time imagining any suggest that with a straight face.

But as I said earlier, a new coin can use whatever distribution it wants, however absurd. You could assign coin balances randomly for that matter.

[allejuppa]

I'm also missing the voting option for "pulling the plug". projects fail sometimes, that's life.

That option has always been there: sell your clams and don't look back.

[danonthehill]

A lot of these suggestions are idiotic (increasingly centralized mindset...forking coin retroactively at arbritary self serving block). It looks like you are fudding your own coin.

*and encouraging holders who disagree with you to sell.

[Bitcoiner2015]

if a new coin is made, which one will be used at Just-Dice?
I would guess the new one, meaning Clam would essentially die.

[smooth]

if a new coin is made, which one will be used at Just-Dice?
I would guess the new one, meaning Clam would essentially die.

dooglus said he was planing to support both as long as each version of the site makes enough to cover costs.

[Bitcoiner2015]

if a new coin is made, which one will be used at Just-Dice?
I would guess the new one, meaning Clam would essentially die.

dooglus said he was planing to support both as long as each version of the site makes enough to cover costs.

I'm happy to go with what is decided, but I would assume that both would be accepted for a while, then Clam would be discontinued.

I do think changing the rules because of a big dig isn't great, but then I also don't understand who had 100k+ non-dust accounts that would contain CLAM.  Probably not a person who we should feel sorry for, more likely a major minor somewhere or an exchange.

[thefix]

@dooglus, did I get the "plan" right?
I just bought a few CLAMs and (because we are past block 730k already) I will get nothing for it?
Instead I stay on an abandoned chain where most CLAMS in circulation have no value at all because people already moved to a different coin?
I don't think that this will work out.

Any serious investor will lose faith entirely. And early adopters are once again taking the advantages.

Pretty sure all the coins on Polo or any exchange would be valid for the new distribution.
But some clarification on all that would be good.

I hope so, because anything else would be a ripoff!
Lets say we both have 50k Clams on Poloniex it may happen that we get different amounts of Doogcoin depending on which coin of ours was deposited after and which one before block 730000.
And the funny thing is, we have no control about it whatsoever.

As I suggested earlier, the cutoff should be announced well in advance so people have an opportunity to position themselves accordingly. For example, if an exchange has not committed to honor the distribution then you can withdraw from it.

I think the intention is to go back before the digger had such an impact on the coin. How would you deal with the digger getting the rest of his coins and throwing them in a wallet before the cutoff date?

You don't, if you want to be even remotely fair about it. "The digger" has the same legitimate ownership of his CLAMs as anyone else.

Does anyone really think that it would be anything other than a joke to target (primarily) one particular person to have their CLAMs invalidated?

I have a hard time imagining any suggest that with a straight face.

But as I said earlier, a new coin can use whatever distribution it wants, however absurd. You could assign coin balances randomly for that matter.

I disagree, no one will have Clams invalidated and things will remain as they are for Clam holders.

No one is suggesting targeting anyone in regards to the Clam distribution

I agree, a new coin is really up to the person that makes it to decide the specs

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[smooth]

@dooglus, did I get the "plan" right?
I just bought a few CLAMs and (because we are past block 730k already) I will get nothing for it?
Instead I stay on an abandoned chain where most CLAMS in circulation have no value at all because people already moved to a different coin?
I don't think that this will work out.

Any serious investor will lose faith entirely. And early adopters are once again taking the advantages.

Pretty sure all the coins on Polo or any exchange would be valid for the new distribution.
But some clarification on all that would be good.

I hope so, because anything else would be a ripoff!
Lets say we both have 50k Clams on Poloniex it may happen that we get different amounts of Doogcoin depending on which coin of ours was deposited after and which one before block 730000.
And the funny thing is, we have no control about it whatsoever.

As I suggested earlier, the cutoff should be announced well in advance so people have an opportunity to position themselves accordingly. For example, if an exchange has not committed to honor the distribution then you can withdraw from it.

I think the intention is to go back before the digger had such an impact on the coin. How would you deal with the digger getting the rest of his coins and throwing them in a wallet before the cutoff date?

You don't, if you want to be even remotely fair about it. "The digger" has the same legitimate ownership of his CLAMs as anyone else.

Does anyone really think that it would be anything other than a joke to target (primarily) one particular person to have their CLAMs invalidated?

I have a hard time imagining any suggest that with a straight face.

But as I said earlier, a new coin can use whatever distribution it wants, however absurd. You could assign coin balances randomly for that matter.

I disagree, no one will have Clams invalidated and things will remain as they are for Clam holders.

No one is suggesting targeting anyone in regards to the Clam distribution

I agree, a new coin is really up to the person that makes it to decide the specs

That's exactly what I said in my last line.

But someone who does do that will have to face danonthehill's accusation of having choosing an arbitrary self-serving block to decide distribution until the end of time. Maybe that is an acceptable cost.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[smooth]

I mean everyone who gets the new coin will switch to it.

Neither coin has an inbuilt advantage and certainly everyone will not switch to it. I will likely abandon a coin that has no ongoing distribution mechanism to bring in new users and especially if it was distributed according to an arbitrary self-serving block. Maybe the new coin will have a good trading value short term given the reduced supply, which is fine with me. I'll get more for my new coins when I dump them.

I don't know what will happen to the old coin, and neither do you. If the idea of a coin with a distribution mechanism going to non-dust holders of BTC/LTC/DOGE was a good idea then it should still do fine. If not then it will die a natural death. There is no need to try to prop it up.

[smooth]

I disagree, no one will have Clams invalidated and things will remain as they are for Clam holders.

This is wrong in general. You forget about CLAM holders who bought today for example. Those will be screwed.

You are assuming a retroactive self-serving block is chosen, which it may be. In that case, yes, those who bought or dug after the block would be disadvantaged. I'm guessing whoever is choosing the block would not be among them (at least not to a significant degree).

If the block to be chosen is assigned is in the future as I recommend, then everyone can decide whether to buy (or sell or dig) before or after the split.

[cjmoles]

I disagree, no one will have Clams invalidated and things will remain as they are for Clam holders.

This is wrong in general. You forget about CLAM holders who bought today for example. Those will be screwed.

You are assuming a retroactive self-serving block is chosen, which it may be. In that case, yes, those who bought or dug after the block would be disadvantaged. I'm guessing whoever is choosing the block would not be among them (at least not to a significant degree).

If the block to be chosen is assigned is in the future as I recommend, then everyone can decide whether to buy (or sell or dig) before or after the split.

See this is what's wrong with the altcoins in general....too many ways for them to be attacked by centralizing bodies...pumpers and dumpers...51% 'ers changing rules....You know what...I bought a bunch of clam at 0.0113, put them up to collect interest on POLO and not more than a couple hours later the price started plummeting because of some "secret digger"....lost 75% of my holding.  I bought some earlier and the same thing happened....just found out about the plans to kill the coin for a new one....looked at what block I moved my coins....figures ...730,235....I'm at a loss for words....

[danonthehill]

I disagree, no one will have Clams invalidated and things will remain as they are for Clam holders.

This is wrong in general. You forget about CLAM holders who bought today for example. Those will be screwed.

You are assuming a retroactive self-serving block is chosen, which it may be. In that case, yes, those who bought or dug after the block would be disadvantaged. I'm guessing whoever is choosing the block would not be among them (at least not to a significant degree).

If the block to be chosen is assigned is in the future as I recommend, then everyone can decide whether to buy (or sell or dig) before or after the split.

See this is what's wrong with the altcoins in general....too many ways for them to be attacked by centralizing bodies...pumpers and dumpers...51% 'ers changing rules....You know what...I bought a bunch of clam at 0.0113, put them up to collect interest on POLO and not more than a couple hours later the price started plummeting because of some "secret digger"....lost 75% of my holding.  I bought some earlier and the same thing happened....just found out about the plans to kill the coin for a new one....looked at what block I moved my coins....figures ...730,235....I'm at a loss for words....

This is precisely why retrospectively choosing a snapshot block is unfair.

Clam was built on a fair and unique distribution model, it is unlikely that any fork which isn't perceived as equally fair will achieve anything like the same levels of success.

If a fork is necessary (I personally think it is not), setting snapshot at future block is the only fair way.  

[uvwvj]

Die clam die