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

[gjhiggins]

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.

Ahh, thanks for disabusing me of that misunderstanding.

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

I'm afraid that's one of the occupational hazards of being cross-disciplinary, I'll try and keep a lid on it.


Cheers

Graham

[andulolika]

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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

[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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

[andulolika]

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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks?
Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing?

[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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks?
Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing?

Do you take your lunch to work or ride the bus?

[chilly2k]

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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks?
Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing?

Do you take your lunch to work or ride the bus?

   I think he wears shorts... 

But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving.  If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop. 

I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams.  and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase.  In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.   

   So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option.  As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.
   
     If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply.  If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K   
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.       

[BayAreaCoins]

  I think he wears shorts...      

You're most likely correct .

But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving.  If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop.      

People run Bitcoin wallets, LTC and ect ect.  JD most likely isn't going to turn the wallets off and I'm reasonably sure other people would continue to run a wallet if they were a part of that ecosystem.

I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams.  and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase.  In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.  

Well of course the % will go down on massively inflated stuff with just a tiny dash of time, but CLAM can't write checks its ass can't cash forever...  "There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins, so they are special"x- "There is only so much silver/gold/ect in the ground that can be reached economically" so on and so forth.  With CLAM it's like "Ya basically one magic internet bean comes into the economy for nothing every minute... wana invest?"

So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option.  As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.

December of last year the digs increased and the stake rewards value increased as well.  We could have that 100 fold if a real service ever started diddling with CLAM (Microsoft, Apple, Bank of America ect.)

    If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply.  If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K  
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.      

Why couldn't that be done none with consensus now?

[chilly2k]

But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving.  If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop.      

People run Bitcoin wallets, LTC and ect ect.  I'm sure JD isn't going to turn the wallets off and I'm sure other people would continue to run a wallet if they were a part of that ecosystem.

   These are 2 different networks.  BTC, LTC etc are POW (Proof of Work) networks,  They rely on miners to keep the network moving/safe.  Clams is POS (Proof of stake) and uses the wallets, instead of miners, to keep the network moving/safe.   

I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams.  and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase.  In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.   

Well of course the % will go down on massively inflated stuff with just a tiny dash of time, but CLAM can't write checks its ass can't cash forever...  "There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins, so they are special"x- "There is only so much silver/gold/ect in the ground that can be reached economically" so on and so forth.  With CLAM it's like "Ya basically one magic internet bean comes into the economy for nothing every minute... wana invest?"

    Well,  The beans are not "coming into the economy for nothing", they are payments to the client's (Wallets, daemons) for keeping the network running. Nothing is free.   Bitcoin has block rewards as payments, the miners also get all fees in the block they mine.  The thought with bitcoin is as the actual block reward decreases, the fees will increase somewhat, and it will still be economical to mine. 

    But you do bring up a good point, "are staking rewards in line with what the coin wants to achieve?".   

So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option.  As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.

December of last year the digs increased and the stake rewards value increased as well.  We could have that 100 fold if a real service ever started diddling with CLAM (Microsoft, Apple, Bank of America ect.)

    I'm not sure what your trying  to say here. 

If your trying to say Microsoft, Apple or BoA would get involved with Clams.   Any "BIG" company that wanted to get involved with crypto-currencies, would simply create their own.  They wouldn't invest in a coin they didn't control.  Do you think IBM wants to worry about some changes a bunch of yahoo's (Self included) from the internet want to make?     

     If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply.  If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K   
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.       

Why couldn't that be done none with consensus now?

   I'm sure it could.  But I'm not suggesting it.  I personally don't mind the 1 clam reward.  And I've seen no indication it hinders the price of clams.  But that could be a topic of discussion.     

[andulolika]

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?

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

1 clam per minute is 1 clam per minute regardless of the outstanding shares of CLAM.

You mean that if you split it in theorerically 1.100.000 chunks is the same as if you split it in 15.000.000 chunks?
Edit: if it makes the supply bigger and lower the price, with the buyins would be a stable price, so why not? You want to leave clam with nothing?

Do you take your lunch to work or ride the bus?

   I think he wears shorts... 

But, you need some kind of incentive to keep the clams network moving.  If you removed stakes, no one would keep a wallet open, and transactions would stop. 

I think andulolika was trying to say, right now the supply is around 1,000,000 clams.  and we're staking 525,600 per year, so roughly a 50% increase.  In a few years when the supply is 5,000,000 clams, the 500K stakes are only a 10% increase.   

   So I'm not sure decreasing the stake reward would be a good option.  As it stands now, the stake reward value will decrease as the supply increases.
   
     If you were doing it all over again, you might tie the stake reward to the total coin supply.  If you wanted a 10% inflation rate, you could make the stake (total supply * .1) / 525.6K   
If you used that for the current clams supply, it would give a stake of .19 clams.       

Thats exactly what i meant , my english and the lack of time (was at work) didnt let me explain what i thinked well but you got it nice there.

[Hippie Tech]

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.

Confused ? We aren't.

The lottery continued on for almost two months after your last reported big win. How many more big wins did you mine ?

What percentage of the total CLAM supply did you "win", by the time the fork came into effect ?

oh yeah someone won a lottery again 663.74264776 block 86690

That was me:

@dooglus
congrats... I guess you're making alot ฿฿ or perhaps $$ out of CLAMs
If I may know, how many of your outputs getting staked everyday?

I've never sold any CLAMs - so what I'm making out of CLAMs is a lot of CLAMs. lol.

I'll probably hold them until they're worthless, or worth a fortune - same as I do with BTC.

I don't know how to count the number of stakes per day without counting them myself - there are lots.

Here's a screenshot of the most recent stakes to give you an idea of the frequency of staking:



Then nothing staked until 17:21. So I guess about 20 per hour, or around 500 per day. I have a feeling that the screenshot shows an unusually good hour though, so maybe it's half that. But with the lotto wins as well I'm sure the average is higher.

That was your take with a single wallet. Since the fork, is it safe to assume that you have been able to maintain the status quo seen above ?

Does the term cryptofiat mean anything to you ?

[BayAreaCoins]

If your trying to say Microsoft, Apple or BoA would get involved with Clams.   Any "BIG" company that wanted to get involved with crypto-currencies, would simply create their own.       

How do you know?

[BayAreaCoins]

Microsoft

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/11/microsoft-bitcoin-currency-banks/

Apple

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/apple-reverses-anti-bitcoin-app-policy-allows-mobile-wallets-back-apple-store/

BoA

http://qz.com/507524/bank-of-america-just-filed-a-patent-that-would-let-you-send-money-using-bitcoin/

A piece from the BAC patent:

"For example, the payment system using the account may function to pay tolls in dollars to a toll collecting authority, but to pay a gameplay authority in a non-dollar denominated medium of exchange, for example digital currency (such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Feathercoin (FTC), Terracoin (TRC), Namecoin (NMC), Novacoin (NVC), or similar), gold, e-gold, digital credits, frequent flier miles, loyalty points, or similar stores of value. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority may operate a payment system on the Dulles Toll Road in Northern Virginia in conjunction with an American Airlines promotion, wherein frequent flier miles are able to be deducted from an account and awarded to others in a contest, game, lottery or sweepstakes. In an embodiment, an account holder may elect to donate 100 frequent flier miles back American Airlines on each toll payment, where American Airlines may elect to use the aggregated miles to conduct a sweepstakes."

Full Patent: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=bitcoin&OS=bitcoin&RS=bitcoin

I'm sure CLAM could have been there, but the left the door open anyways.

[dooglus]

Confused ? We aren't.

The lottery continued on for almost two months after your last reported big win. How many more big wins did you mine ?

I was staking ~500 blocks per day, or around 30% of the network total. I had my fair share of big wins, but the majority of stakes were 0.1 CLAMs. During the lottery staking the average stake size was lower than the current 1 CLAM per block.

What percentage of the total CLAM supply did you "win", by the time the fork came into effect ?

Staking is a way of keeping up with inflation. To get a percentage of the CLAM supply you dig it or buy it. On average, staking doesn't change your percentage of the supply unless other holders fall behind by not staking.

That was your take with a single wallet. Since the fork, is it safe to assume that you have been able to maintain the status quo seen above ?

I only had a single wallet. I no longer stake my own wallet. I have my CLAMs invested at Just-Dice where I have a minority share of the pool. So no, once I introduced CLAM to a much wider audience I wasn't able to keep staking 500 CLAMs per day. My percentage of the money supply has been steadily falling.

Does the term cryptofiat mean anything to you ?

No. Google asks me "Did you mean: cryptocat" so I guess it isn't a widely used term.

[dooglus]

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.

So we have two main camps here. Exaggerating the positions, we have:

Camp A: wants to leave everything how it is so it's fair for future diggers. It's not OK to cancel their free CLAMs. The stakeholders knew massive digging was a risk and accepted it. They hoped it wouldn't happen but it did. Suck it up.

Camp B: bought into CLAM and saw the price drop. To fix this, let's ban digging. Then the price can recover and we can all get rich.

Sure there are shades of grey between these extremes, involving halvenings and such like, but let's ignore those for now.

You're proposing a third camp:

Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?

Anyone who wants digging to stop switches to doogcoin. Presumably JD switches to doogcoin too. I guess most CLAM holders dump their CLAM to buy more doogcoin. CLAM price goes to 0, doogcoin price goes to the moon. Is that the correct outcome? Is that what you're proposing?

What do people think of this "Camp C" option?

It seems like would satisfy both Camp A (since we're not changing the rules of CLAM, like they want) and Camp B (since it gives them a way of holding their value without being diluted by future diggers). Did I miss anything?

[dooglus]

I decided to reply to each post in a separate post to make it easier for people to reply to me. Let me know if it looks too spammy and I'll go back to single large mega-replies...

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?

The act of importing an old BTC wallet into your CLAM client doesn't cause any effect at all on the blockchain or CLAM p2p network. We just can't tell how many CLAMs have been dug up.

The first we know about a dig is when the digger first stakes or spends his 4.6 CLAM output.

That "first stake or spend" is the act we are talking about changing the rules for.

So yes, it's possible that you imported your old BTC wallet a year ago, found 10 funded addresses and now have a balance of 46 CLAMs which you have never staked or spent.

If we voted to "stop all digging", one day you would upgrade your wallet software and see that your balance went from 46 to 0 with the upgrade, since the new version of the software would no longer recognise any old 4.6 output that hadn't moved yet.

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.

I agree, but continuing digging does the same. The constant dilution of the money supply and the associated downward pressure on the price makes CLAM an unattractive asset to hold. It appears to be a lose/lose decision. Either we violate the sanctity of the initial distribution and change the rules, or we watch the coin's value diluted closer and closer to zero.

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.

Huh, that's what 'smooth' said in the previous post too.

Is it nuts? It seems we have two very different groups here - those who want the initial rules kept, and those who want a coin they can hold for value. Perhaps we can only satisfy both groups by having two very different coins?

[dooglus]

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).

In so far as the digger is dumping and forcing the price down, yes.

I'm not sure you meant "staking" there, since it doesn't make much sense. Staking happens once per minute, by design, whoever is digging, dumping, or whatever else.

-  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.

I really do think that if the rules were changed to stop new CLAMs being dug up then there would be less supply, more demand, and an increase in price. I'm surprised you don't. As I understand it, nobody is claiming that stopping the digging wouldn't cause the price to rise. The objection is only whether it is fair to do such a thing.

- 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 think the concern is that we don't have two or three years. If the price continues dropping for another year will anyone still be interested in the coin? There are hundreds if not thousands of dead altcoins out there which would be staking nicely if only anyone could be bothered to still have the wallet running.

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)

This seems to be a common misconception:

"Staking is like inflation, and inflation is bad"

We feel that inflation is bad, because in the fiat world we put $1000 in a savings account, earn 2% interest on it, but in the mean time the money supply has been inflated 10% by quantitative easing. Our $1002 now has less buying power than it had before. It is a smaller percentage of the total money supply.

This is even true with PoW coins like DogeCoin. Miners get to earn block rewards forever. We buy a million DOGE, save it, and every day our million DOGE represents a smaller and smaller percentage of the money supply.

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. So now we have 1500 of the 1.5 million supply, and still have 0.1% of the total money supply. Sure, assuming a constant market cap the price will have decreased by 50%, but our holdings have increased by 50% too, so our net worth in CLAM has remained constant.

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.

and it seems to push owners to hoard CLAMS and hold them indefinitely.

but it shouldn't. Staking is "running to stay still". The only people you will be overtaking are those who aren't running (staking). I mean, staking isn't some magic wealth creation system. If everyone is staking, where does all that extra value come from? It doesn't. It increases the money supply while decreasing the per-unit value of that supply.

[dooglus]

[...]

I'm not sure whether the "fuck you, don't answer my posts" clause is still in effect. I'll err on the side of caution and disregard them until I hear differently.

[dooglus]

The stake problem is just a problem for as long as there is such small supply

What is "the stake problem"? I don't see any problem with staking. It is a fair way of rewarding those who help secure the network, at the expense of those who decide not to.

[Northstar]

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.

So we have two main camps here. Exaggerating the positions, we have:

Camp A: wants to leave everything how it is so it's fair for future diggers. It's not OK to cancel their free CLAMs. The stakeholders knew massive digging was a risk and accepted it. They hoped it wouldn't happen but it did. Suck it up.

Camp B: bought into CLAM and saw the price drop. To fix this, let's ban digging. Then the price can recover and we can all get rich.

Sure there are shades of grey between these extremes, involving halvenings and such like, but let's ignore those for now.

You're proposing a third camp:

Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?

Anyone who wants digging to stop switches to doogcoin. Presumably JD switches to doogcoin too. I guess most CLAM holders dump their CLAM to buy more doogcoin. CLAM price goes to 0, doogcoin price goes to the moon. Is that the correct outcome? Is that what you're proposing?

What do people think of this "Camp C" option?

It seems like would satisfy both Camp A (since we're not changing the rules of CLAM, like they want) and Camp B (since it gives them a way of holding their value without being diluted by future diggers). Did I miss anything?

Why not implement said Doogcoin alongside Clam on JD, instead of in its place? Kind of like Alex's site where you can gamble a few different crypto's with one common trollbox, etc?

[BayAreaCoins]

So we have two main camps here. Exaggerating the positions, we have:

Camp A: wants to leave everything how it is so it's fair for future diggers. It's not OK to cancel their free CLAMs. The stakeholders knew massive digging was a risk and accepted it. They hoped it wouldn't happen but it did. Suck it up.

Camp B: bought into CLAM and saw the price drop. To fix this, let's ban digging. Then the price can recover and we can all get rich.

Sure there are shades of grey between these extremes, involving halvenings and such like, but let's ignore those for now.

You're proposing a third camp:

Camp C: It's not fair to change the CLAM rules, but it's OK to make a new coin, let's call it doogcoin. We use a variant of the CLAM distribution method: everyone who held non-distribution CLAM outputs at lunchtime yesterday can use their CLAM private key to claim their doogcoins. Just-Dice stops using CLAM and starts using doogcoin. The CLAM rules are unchanged, everyone can keep digging their CLAM, so everyone's happy, right?

All three correct I'd say.

[...]

I'm not sure whether the "fuck you, don't answer my posts"

I prefer it the "Don't use energy answering my posts, fuck you" clause and I was trying to keep my nasty attitude off the public forums as requested by Creative.  That's why I pm'ed it.

Tbh I'd prefer for the clause to stay in effect, but really I can get the fuck over it because it's the internet and if you don't let one river flow, 10 other things branch off it.  I need to not be cranky.  I'm working on it.  I see it as you described in Camp B.