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

[YoyodyneSystems]

1 CLAM for 1 NEWCOIN swap is genius. Solves everything pretty much.

Bravo.

Done and done.

[dooglus]

1 CLAM for 1 NEWCOIN swap is genius. Solves everything pretty much.

Bravo.

Done and done.

I didn't see anyone propose a swap.

The proposal I saw was that everyone gets the same number of newcoins as they had CLAMs at some point in time.

So you don't have to choose between the two, you keep your 27 CLAMs and get 27 newcoins for free.

You can sell your CLAMs and buy extra newcoins, or sell your newcoins and buy extra CLAMs if you like - it's up to you.

Is that better or worse than a simple swap?

I don't really even see how a simple swap would work. If there's a constant 1-1 peg between the two coins then there aren't really two coins are there? They would always have the same value as each other...

[jd1959]

I don't understand the current panic? Until Doog reopened JD the price of Clam was well below what it is now......OK since JD lots more people have joined the Clam community, most of whom seem more interested in a

quick buck than Clam itself (You only have to read previous pages here to verify this). I think if they want to start a new coin just for JD that's cool, go ahead and do it. I also think that Clam should be left to run its

course not be hijacked by a bunch of gamblers. Just my personal view, I'll get out of the way now

Jon 

[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. So what's to stop him from continuing the so called "malicious market manipulation" of the new coin. Sure he does not have the ability to dig more but even if he's holding a fraction of the coin he's still going to continue making investors butthurt and QQ endlessly about how he's a total dick for taking free money

[dooglus]

On the other side forking projects is a quick and practical way for solving endless discussions, and for what is worth I agree with it. In theory it is a 'safe' choice if services using clams (mainly JD) will run both coins in parallel. It's a bit a win for the investing side of a coin, rather than other wonderful features, but unluckily it turns out it's quite relevant for a coin's usage.

It has been suggested on the Just-Dice chat that I shouldn't even be talking about this stuff, because it is causing the price of CLAM to drop.

[YoyodyneSystems]

1 CLAM for 1 NEWCOIN swap is genius. Solves everything pretty much.

Bravo.

Done and done.

I didn't see anyone propose a swap.

The proposal I saw was that everyone gets the same number of newcoins as they had CLAMs at some point in time.

So you don't have to choose between the two, you keep your 27 CLAMs and get 27 newcoins for free.

You can sell your CLAMs and buy extra newcoins, or sell your newcoins and buy extra CLAMs if you like - it's up to you.

Is that better or worse than a simple swap?

I don't really even see how a simple swap would work. If there's a constant 1-1 peg between the two coins then there aren't really two coins are there? They would always have the same value as each other...

That's what I meant. Just the word "swap" would be the incorrect choice of word I made.

On the price: It should do just fine with this new solution. Maybe someone just trying for a last ditch shot at cheap coins while taking advantage of uncertainty.
The new coin would have no PoW or digging and therefore would not be as limited in price as CLAMs has been recently. So CLAM would become rather valuable for the "distribution" to the new coin.
And in theory the new coin could become rather valuable being just PoS.

[jd1959]

On the other side forking projects is a quick and practical way for solving endless discussions, and for what is worth I agree with it. In theory it is a 'safe' choice if services using clams (mainly JD) will run both coins in parallel. It's a bit a win for the investing side of a coin, rather than other wonderful features, but unluckily it turns out it's quite relevant for a coin's usage.

It has been suggested on the Just-Dice chat that I shouldn't even be talking about this stuff, because it is causing the price of CLAM to drop.

I do think you've earned the right to express your opinion about Clam........ markets go up markets go down

Jon

[dooglus]

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?

[YoyodyneSystems]

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?

It's perfect. Do it

[gamblingbad]

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?

Make a new coin based on clam holders it not a bad idea, just when u say u take a snapshot. Then future clam buyers might get 0 for their clam. If u decide to use the snapshot u take for base your new coin if you make a new coin. If u make 2 dicesites or whatever clam will down more. Thats the problem. And it seems like some big investors have made decision based on you saying you take a snapshot even tho you never told you will make new coin. Because whats the point of taking a snapshot if you never plan to make a new coin. Just for fun?

Whatever you choose, if its a vote, or keep it like it is or make a new coin, just do it. Its pointless to have endless disqusion without anything done. When a decision is made, people can decide if support it or not.

[marilyn4325]

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 like this idea. Then the current rules of CLAM don't change and everyone can change who wants to use the new coin. But the exchange rate of CLAM might drop, because people would assume that some people might cash out to BTC for easy money doubling.

If we vote based on how many CLAMs we hold, would be nice if investors at JD could vote, too.

[gamblingbad]

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 like this idea. Then the current rules of CLAM don't change and everyone can change who wants to use the new coin. But the exchange rate of CLAM might drop, because people would assume that some people might cash out to BTC for easy money doubling.

If we vote based on how many CLAMs we hold, would be nice if investors at JD could vote, too.

What about who buy clam in the future they will not get the "new coin". Most people wont buy anything if not what will happen

[smooth]

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 like this idea. Then the current rules of CLAM don't change and everyone can change who wants to use the new coin. But the exchange rate of CLAM might drop, because people would assume that some people might cash out to BTC for easy money doubling.

If we vote based on how many CLAMs we hold, would be nice if investors at JD could vote, too.

What about who buy clam in the future they will not get the "new coin". Most people wont buy anything if not what will happen

They can buy whichever coin they want, or both of them, assuming either or both coins still have a market in the future. That is never guaranteed with any coin.

[gamblingbad]

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 like this idea. Then the current rules of CLAM don't change and everyone can change who wants to use the new coin. But the exchange rate of CLAM might drop, because people would assume that some people might cash out to BTC for easy money doubling.

If we vote based on how many CLAMs we hold, would be nice if investors at JD could vote, too.

What about who buy clam in the future they will not get the "new coin". Most people wont buy anything if not what will happen

They can buy whichever coin they want, or both of them, assuming either or both coins still have a market in the future. That is never guaranteed with any coin.

I know people can buy whatever they want. But why buy clams that can be change out with other coin. Everyone knows clam value is based on jd. What jd does decide future clam value. But when people not know what the owner of jd will do then less will buy it and more people will sell it. I just want a desicion made what jd will do. Not all this back and forth. Its just meaningless making it more even uncertian about what will happen in the future.

[doothewop]

But when people not know what the owner of jd will do then less will buy it and more people will sell it. I just want a desicion made what jd will do.

A couple of pages ago, Dooglus said "I can say that I won't stop Just-Dice accepting CLAM for as long as the site continues to pay for its expenses.".  Is that what you're looking for?

[gamblingbad]

But when people not know what the owner of jd will do then less will buy it and more people will sell it. I just want a desicion made what jd will do.

A couple of pages ago, Dooglus said "I can say that I won't stop Just-Dice accepting CLAM for as long as the site continues to pay for its expenses.".  Is that what you're looking for?

And if new coin, maybe people will move to new coin , and clam dice maybe wont pay for its expenses.

[BayAreaCoins]

Please remember to vote on if you think the SuperClam community account should have elections to see who controls it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1212422.msg12721665#msg12721665

Right now the majority says yes... which I happen to agree with.  Because it does seem like a public community position.

I doubt voting means much to "these" folks unless they agree with what's being voted on & if the vote goes how "they" like. But still... VOTE!

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Please remember to vote on if you think the SuperClam community account should have elections to see who controls it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1212422.msg12721665#msg12721665

Right now the majority says yes... which I happen to agree with.  Because it does seem like a public community position.

I doubt voting means much to "these" folks unless they agree with what's being voted on & if the vote goes how "they" like. But still... VOTE!

I agree with BAC.  Present account holders are totalitarian, arbitrary, disrespectful, smug.

New account holders needed - someone level-headed, mature, stable, rational.  I nominate BAC and Hippie Tech.

[BayAreaCoins]

Please remember to vote on if you think the SuperClam community account should have elections to see who controls it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1212422.msg12721665#msg12721665

Right now the majority says yes... which I happen to agree with.  Because it does seem like a public community position.

I doubt voting means much to "these" folks unless they agree with what's being voted on & if the vote goes how "they" like. But still... VOTE!

I agree with BAC.  Present account holders are totalitarian, arbitrary, disrespectful, smug.

New account holders needed - someone level-headed, mature, stable, rational.  I nominate BAC and Hippie Tech.

har har. 

I respectfully decline your nomination.

[Hippie Tech]

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?

It's perfect. Do it

Aye ! Shitcoin shill !

Doogie has fucked the digger out of 62% of his/her instamine !! Your vast misfortune has been saved ! WTfreakinGOOOO !

That is until the next time you must travel across The Sea of TheForkWillFuckYouNess.

And since Doooogie insists on jumbling our posts into a single convoluted mess..
snipped from : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg12975664#msg12975664
--> <--

  Soooo PERFECT !