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

[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.

[chilly2k]

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?

    I like the camp C option, just needs a different name.  Doog is to close to Doge.  

Would the rest of the coins parameters stay the same.  like block times, staking rates etc...  

[Northstar]

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.

I'm really glad to see reason prevailing over emotions, you guys are all an important part of the solution to our problem due to your past contributions and I don't think any solution would be good unless all important parties are on board and we eventually reach consensus. If Iran and the US can sit down and hammer out a deal, I am sure we can find a solution to our predicament as well.

[BayAreaCoins]

   I like the camp C option, just needs a different name.  Doog is to close to Doge.  

Would the rest of the coins parameters stay the same.  like block times, staking rates etc...  

I think this conversation should take place in it's own thread perhaps if that idea wants to grow.

[nicolaennio]

Thanks for the reply, since these posts are getting gigantic, I'll try to cut a bit my replies too.

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

The speculation "A whale is dumping down the price" which I saw in many posts and yours too, seems purely dictated by fear and not by rational thinking. If a whale is really 'forcing' the price, then no problem, in few time the price will recover.

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?

Please convince me this is not fearmongering, in that case I doubt the 'right' decisions will be taken.

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.

More demand? Surely you can stop supply, but this doesn't mean you'll have more demand, and so you don't necessarily have an increase in price. But I can think of a way for having more demand: a low price so that people can 'buy and play on JD'

This seems to be a common misconception:

"Staking is like inflation, and inflation is bad"

I like the inflation of CLAMs, I am just saying that currently is "too much".

[chilly2k]

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.

   Food for thought.  

   Is the problem digging or dumping?  Digging, in and of itself, will not cause the price to drop.  Dumping will.  There are several ways to end up with dumping.  

a) dig up a bunch of clams and sell them off as fast as you can.
b) own a lot of clams, then get butt hurt and dump them all on the market.
c) win a large amount on JD and dump them just to get the BTC.  
d) inherit clams, then dump them.  
e) people panicking over rumors.  

    Just throwing it out there.  

      
        

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

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

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 

I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address, but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

[jaysabi]

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.

It's not value destruction as long as the economy is growing with the money supply, but exactly what economy is there underneath CLAM? I suppose a couple gambling sites could constitute an economy in the broadest measure of the word, but unless those sites grow their gambling base at the same rate as CLAM inflation, isn't inflation devaluing the coin? Perhaps CLAMs' ultimate weakness is its low utility. You just can't do much with it. Unless a (more robust) economy springs up around the coin, the current inflation rate is bound to devalue it relative to other currencies.

[whywetrance]

Could someone post an updated bootstrap?


Found 2 old doge wallets from December 2013 lol, and figured what the heck- let's see what Clam is all about.

I'm stuck on Block 600423 and about 2 weeks into syncing after using the bootstraps supplied here.


Can't wait for that 8-9 clams- not bad for an old microsd find =)




Go CLAM!

[chilly2k]

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

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 

I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address, but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

  I think I finally wrapped my head around it.  When you submit your wallet to the client, it will generate the matched clams keys.  So your Clams client will reflect the balance as recorded in the first few clams blocks.  Nothing happens on the block chain.  Now if you leave the wallet long enough it could stake those addresses and the new balance would be reflected in a new block on the chain.  Or you could move all of your coins to a new address.  in either case once you move the balance from the origin block you can find a DIG transaction in the clams debug log.   

   Not sure if this is a fact, But I usually like to say claim, for importing the wallet, and updating your clams wallet, and Dig for the actual movement. 

I believe the thought was to, eliminate the code to move clams from blocks <  9500 or something around there.  And to fail transactions that try to do that.   

[SuperClam]

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

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 
I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address, but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

  I think I finally wrapped my head around it.  When you submit your wallet to the client, it will generate the matched clams keys.  So your Clams client will reflect the balance as recorded in the first few clams blocks.  Nothing happens on the block chain.  Now if you leave the wallet long enough it could stake those addresses and the new balance would be reflected in a new block on the chain.  Or you could move all of your coins to a new address.  in either case once you move the balance from the origin block you can find a DIG transaction in the clams debug log.   
   Not sure if this is a fact, But I usually like to say claim, for importing the wallet, and updating your clams wallet, and Dig for the actual movement. 
I believe the thought was to, eliminate the code to move clams from blocks <  9500 or something around there.  And to fail transactions that try to do that.   

This is essentially accurate.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

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

Really?  During this discussion I always read "digging" as submitting a pre-May/2014 BTC wallet to receive 4.6 CLAMS per BTC address. 

I can see how you can stop somebody from getting 4.6 CLAMs from a previously unsubmitted BTC address, but how can you keep somebody from staking/spending CLAMs they already own?

  I think I finally wrapped my head around it.  When you submit your wallet to the client, it will generate the matched clams keys.  So your Clams client will reflect the balance as recorded in the first few clams blocks.  Nothing happens on the block chain.  Now if you leave the wallet long enough it could stake those addresses and the new balance would be reflected in a new block on the chain.  Or you could move all of your coins to a new address.  in either case once you move the balance from the origin block you can find a DIG transaction in the clams debug log.   

   Not sure if this is a fact, But I usually like to say claim, for importing the wallet, and updating your clams wallet, and Dig for the actual movement. 

I believe the thought was to, eliminate the code to move clams from blocks <  9500 or something around there.  And to fail transactions that try to do that.   

Thank you for that explanation.  I guess I need to update my user name to include more of the coins I'm too dumb for.  Is there a limit on user name length?  If anyone starts posting as TooDumbForAllCoins, it's me.

[dooglus]

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?

I just spent a few hours away from the computer thinking about things, and came to the same conclusion myself. There's no reason to switch from CLAM to the new coin when we can accept both at the same time. That way people get to lose their balance twice!

The Just-Dice codebase isn't set up to handle multiple currencies, but I can simply run two different instances like I did with the original Just-Dice and Doge-Dice sites.

[dooglus]

The speculation "A whale is dumping down the price" which I saw in many posts and yours too, seems purely dictated by fear and not by rational thinking. If a whale is really 'forcing' the price, then no problem, in few time the price will recover.

There is no question that someone with access to a lot of old BTC private keys is systematically digging and dumping distribution CLAMs. He is doing it in reverse order of the block the outputs were created in, just to be sure we know it's a single entity doing it.

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?

Please convince me this is not fearmongering, in that case I doubt the 'right' decisions will be taken.

I can try to convince you of the timescales. At 2015-11-13 22:51:23 the digger dug the following addresses: [x9NXaGSz] [xA9338mM] [xPWEDmTS] [xEZKQHEU] [xPosuwLa] [xNNwmVoL] [xXL7bZ5s], all of which were funded in block 5763. Click each link and check which block the addresses were funded in, and which block they were emptied in. Before that he was working on block 5764, and so on back up to the newest distribution block. If you were to dig from block 9999 back to block 5764, you would have dug 38.32% of all the distribution CLAMs. Since the whale digger's CLAMs are uniformly distributed through the initial distribution we can say with pretty good certainty that he is around 38% of the way through digging the wallet he's currently working on.

This chart shows global digging (click to enlarge):



The 'whale digger' started around Aug 21st, so it has taken him 3 months to dig 200k, representing 38% of his wallet, but note that after the first 10 days or so he slowed down a lot. In the last 77 days he has dug 135k, representing 25.8% of his wallet. Since he has 100-38.32 = 61.68% left to dig of the current wallet, and he's digging 25.8/77 = 0.335% of his wallet per day, the remaining 61.68% should take him 184 days, or 6 more months.

And that's just for the wallet he's currently digging through. We don't know if he has others. We do know that the wallet he's digging represents something like 3 to 5% of all the distribution CLAMs and so it is entirely possible that there are 10 more out there of the same size or bigger.

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.

More demand? Surely you can stop supply, but this doesn't mean you'll have more demand, and so you don't necessarily have an increase in price. But I can think of a way for having more demand: a low price so that people can 'buy and play on JD'

I have stopped buying CLAMs. It makes no sense to buy them when the price is going nowhere but down. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I'm sure that stopping the digger would stop the downward price pressure and remove the only reason I and others stopped buying CLAMs.

Price is a function of supply and demand. The price adjusts until the supply at that price is equal to the demand at that price.

This seems to be a common misconception:

"Staking is like inflation, and inflation is bad"

I like the inflation of CLAMs, I am just saying that currently is "too much".

Can you expand on that? If it's not bad, how can it be too much? Since it theoretically has no net effect on the value of your holdings what does it matter how high the staking reward is?

[dooglus]

  Is the problem digging or dumping?  Digging, in and of itself, will not cause the price to drop.  Dumping will.  There are several ways to end up with dumping.  

a) dig up a bunch of clams and sell them off as fast as you can.
b) own a lot of clams, then get butt hurt and dump them all on the market.
c) win a large amount on JD and dump them just to get the BTC.  
d) inherit clams, then dump them.  
e) people panicking over rumors.  

    Just throwing it out there.

Good point. We don't know that the digger is dumping at all.

We do know that all the coins he digs go to poloniex, and then most go to JD.

We can't tell the difference between:

  1) digger deposits to poloniex and sells CLAMs to JD investor; JD investor withdraws CLAMs to JD

  2) digger deposits to poloniex and then withdraws CLAMs to JD; the poloniex step is purely to obfuscate the link between him and his JD account

Either way, the money supply is being massively diluted by digging, and the price is dropping.