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

[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.

[1714952400]

1714952400

[1714952400]

1714952400

[1714952400]

1714952400

[1714952400]

1714952400

[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

 

[cryptospout]

Forgive me if I'm not reading this correctly but if you do a 1 for 1 swap at block 730k the digger would still possibly have 500+k coins as you do not know what he's doing with them once they move to polo or jd.

See a couple of posts up - I wasn't considering a "swap" at all.

I was considering having the initial distribution of the new coin be such that everyone has the same as the amount of already-moved CLAM they had at that block. Coins which hadn't moved since the initial CLAM distribution wouldn't feature in the new coin's blockchain.

And so "the digger" would only have the 38% of his 500k that he moved already, and the next generation of large diggers would have nothing.

The idea being that since some people want digging to stop and others want it left alone, we need a 2nd coin in which digging has stopped.

For those who want digging left as it started, there's CLAM. For people who want it stopped, there's the other coin.

Again, it's just an idea someone brought up. So far I've heard nothing against it other than that "it's a bad idea". But is it? And if so, why so?

I admit using the term swap was poor judgement I do know the people will hold both coins but is it fair to say this is just an idea? you have already taken a snapshot, you had mention a new coin weeks ago in JD chat "cloogs". It seems to me its more than just an idea you seem well prepared to execute. It does not bother me either way as free <X> coins always fit in my business model perfectly but I can't imagine the average investor being thrilled about the idea.

[shanem]

Someone keeps dumping this coin. Unless there is some revolutionary technology behind this coin, the digger will continue dumping their coins and CLAMS will have very low value.

[DrkLvr_]

Someone keeps dumping this coin. Unless there is some revolutionary technology behind this coin, the digger will continue dumping their coins and CLAMS will have very low value.

The sooner changes are made the sooner people will begin supporting this coin again (or rather the next iteration of it). Like I said before, CLAM is an experimental altcoin currency. The distribution model was experimental, and maybe things that should have been identified when the decision was originally made, weren't.

The 'digger threat' is real, for a variety of reasons, security-wise and financially. This should be obvious by now with all of the valid arguments that have been brought up. This could have been acted on in a similar fashion to the lottery threat. Funny how no one was opposed to a change then, yet now all of sudden the thread is littered with idealists and everything about CLAMS is sacrosanct.

The most ridiculous part of this is if/when doog makes his changes, 90% of the people who are totally opposed to making any changes will switch to his version of the coin since it will be the only one with any value remaining.

[dooglus]

@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?

No, that's not right. You get the CLAMs that you bought.

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.

The CLAM chain isn't being abandoned.

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

I took a snapshot without announcing it precisely to prevent anyone taking advantage of any "insider knowledge" in the event that we do decide to make a new coin. Remember when CLAM took its snapshot of the BTC chain? It wasn't announced in advance, or people would have taken advantage of that knowledge to end up with extra CLAMs from the initial distribution.

I didn't stock up on CLAM before the snapshot either. Trading looked entirely normal before I took the snapshot.

[Hippie Tech]

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. 

Actually, the best way to fork, I mean fuck, .. I mean fork the whales (namely SuperClam and Dooglus), would be to push the snapshot back 4-5 months. This will put the kabosh on their easy/instamine, if they did salt the blockchain with hundreds of thier addys during the time leading up to launch.

Name:    SuperClam
Date Registered:    April 26, 2014, 01:38:20 AM

CLAM snapshot : May 12, 2014

Is there anyway to prove if these giant diggers are single wallets with dozens of valid addys ?

How many addresses does each BTC, LTC and/or DOGE wallet.dat hold again ?

[chilly2k]

Someone keeps dumping this coin. Unless there is some revolutionary technology behind this coin, the digger will continue dumping their coins and CLAMS will have very low value.

The sooner changes are made the sooner people will begin supporting this coin again (or rather the next iteration of it). Like I said before, CLAM is an experimental altcoin currency. The distribution model was experimental, and maybe things that should have been identified when the decision was originally made, weren't.

The 'digger threat' is real, for a variety of reasons, security-wise and financially. This should be obvious by now with all of the valid arguments that have been brought up. This could have been acted on in a similar fashion to the lottery threat. Funny how no one was opposed to a change then, yet now all of sudden the thread is littered with idealists and everything about CLAMS is sacrosanct.

The most ridiculous part of this is if/when doog makes his changes, 90% of the people who are totally opposed to making any changes will switch to his version of the coin since it will be the only one with any value remaining.

   Can you explain further the security threat the digger exposed?  Also go back to the first 6 pages, and you'll see the exposure to a "big digger" was known then.  It was part of the risk.

   I "personally" still don't see a problem with the digger.  If there were no other outside influences on clams, the digger was quite happy slowly dumping his coins on the market.  He also reacted, when something outside his control caused clams to dump.  This made the problem exponentially worse.   But in any market based systems changes are going  to happen.  

   I won't switch to the new version.  I'll still support CLAMS.  But, I also may play with the new coin.  I was a CLAMS supporter long before JD and I'll be one till the end.  I may end up a crazy clams bagholder, but if that's the worse thing you can say about me, I'm OK with it.