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

[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 The distribution model was experimental, and maybe things that should have been identified when the decision was originally made, weren't.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.  

      

[dooglus]

He's losing it and has been for several months.

It's hard to respond to such fuzzy accusations. Are you referring to my sanity here? Is this just meant as an ad hominem attack or do you have anything of substance to say?

He has no faith and really never has.  I don't know why any serious investor would think any differently faith wise about Doogcoin even if there was a huge BTC wall because the dig pressure is gone, but the stakes will still eat it over time.

I don't understand what my beliefs have to do with anything. Digging is continuing, so I don't know why you say "dig pressure is gone". And what do stakes eat? None of what you are saying really makes any sense.

I told you folks that the vote meant nothing... Doog didn't see the numbers turn out for him and his expensive stash,

I proposed having a vote, but it was an unpopular idea because the people who didn't dig their CLAMs yet wouldn't have a voice. I can see the logic in that.

I didn't see any numbers "turn out" because we didn't have the vote yet. I expect if we did then the majority would be in favour of stopping or at least decreasing digging rewards, but that's just my guess.

so he thinks he can remake it with something totally new to avoid the vote and fill his greed boat back up in BTC.   Reasonable disgusting and sad, but o well.  If that's what he wants to do then so be it. None of my business.  I just don't believe in belongs in this thread.

I don't just think I can make a new coin, I know I can. The question is whether it's the right thing to do. That's why we're having this discussion. To try to decide what the correct course of action would be.

What do you think would the right think to do?

I guess you think the right thing to do would be whatever allows you to make as much money as possible from clamchecker, and screw everyone else. Am I close?

Doogs like:
http://orig10.deviantart.net/c6b8/f/2014/365/6/8/screw_you_guys__i_m_going_home__by_drizz67-d8c2ycc.jpg

No, he's not.

Doog's like "hey, this is a tough situation with lots of divergent thoughts; let's brainstorm and try to find a solution to it".

What an asshole, eh?

[dooglus]

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.

It's just an idea: since some people want the rules unchanged and others want them changed, how about a new coin with changed rules and the old coin with unchanged rules. Then everyone can use the coin they prefer. Or both.

I was thinking I'd just take a snapshot at some point in time and have the new coin start with the same amounts in each address as in the old coin at that point in time. So Poloniex would have the same number of newcoins as they had CLAMs in block 730k.

[dooglus]

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.

If you deposited your coins after block 730k, then you would have newcoins in your local wallet (since that's where they were as of block 730k).

If you deposited your coins before block 730k, then your newcoins would be in Poloniex's wallet (since that's where they were as of block 730k).

[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.

   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.  

      

The digger could easily have additional wallets. It's all well and good (security-wise) now that he's dumping slowly,. but what if this person is a nefarious actor and hates CLAMS ?  The coin is already down from 0.013 to 0.0013 now - an entire order of magnitude, and the digger is only 30% done on the current wallet. What if, once he's dumped into 99% of the buy support, he digs the next 1 or more wallets all at once - and even JD can't compete to secure the network. Is that a risk you're willing to take?

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[dooglus]

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).

I announced that I had taken the snapshot as soon as the snapshot was taken.

Anyone buying after that either knew about it or didn't care enough to keep up with this thread or the JD chat.

It seems to me that we're never going to reach agreement on how best to proceed. I don't know what else to try. Taking a vote is unpopular. Making a new coin is unpopular. Leaving things unchanged is unpopular. It seems that no matter what I suggest I'm the bad guy.

I would just say "fuck it" and leave things how they are - but then someone will accuse me of being the digger and say that this whole conversation was planned to arrive at that conclusion. So I just don't know what to do for the best.

[dooglus]

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

Clam was built on a fair and unique distribution model,

CLAM  was built by retrospectively choosing a snapshot block.

Don't you see the contradiction in your two sentences?

[dooglus]

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.

Yes, and that is exactly the sentiment that spurred me into stirring up this whole discussion all those weeks ago.

What, if anything, do you think we (the CLAM community) should do about it?

[ethought]

It seems to me that we're never going to reach agreement on how best to proceed. I don't know what else to try. Taking a vote is unpopular. Making a new coin is unpopular. Leaving things unchanged is unpopular. It seems that no matter what I suggest I'm the bad guy.

I think that's pretty normal in altcoin world - often hard to reach a concensus, or even intelligent discussion sometimes 

For the record I don't think you are the "bad guy".

I think you are going to have to make the call, and some people will not be happy some will. You cant please all the people all the time.

So I don't have to spend time (in which I should be coding ) reading the past * days discussion could you please summarise the advantages / reasons for starting Doogcoin?

[dooglus]

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.

My share of the total active CLAM supply has been steadily shrinking over time due to dilution from the digger and the increase of the JD bankroll.

The further back you push the snapshot the better for my bottom line.

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.

I didn't hear about CLAM until after it had launched. I was able to dig some small (2 digit) number of addresses. Maybe 27 of them. Something like that.

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

CLAM snapshot : May 12, 2014

So the CLAM project account was created around the same time as the CLAM project itself? That's highly suspicious, eh?

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 ?

Sites like walletexplorer.com attempt to answer such questions by analyzing which addresses appear together as inputs to a transaction. If A and B are inputs to a transaction it's likely that A and B are in the same wallet. If B and C are inputs to another transaction then it's likely that all 3 of A, B, and C are in the same wallet. walletexplorer.com applies this across the whole blockchain to partition the set of all addresses into "clusters" of addresses which it's likely belong to the same wallet. Using coinjoin it is possible to thwart such analysis and cause independent clusters to merge, but for the most part walletexplorer.com's analysis is probably accurate.

Most of the "whale digger" addresses appear to be in a cluster labelled "BetVIP.com" by one of the wallet explorer sites. I never heard of that site, and find it hard to believe it was big enough to have created 100k funded BTC addresses organically, but I've not spent much time researching the whale digger. It doesn't really matter who he is.

[dooglus]

  Can you explain further the security threat the digger exposed?

I expect he's referring to fear that there's a wallet out there that could instantly dig up more than 51% of the active supply and begin re-writing the CLAM blockchain from the most recent snapshot.

The active supply is currently just under 1.2 million CLAMs. So a wallet with 300k funded addresses would be able to pull off such an attack.

[wry]

@Dooglus:
.....
This is unacceptable. If you are planning a snapshot at block 730000, the fairest thing would be to stop trading
of CLAMS at all exchanges from that point on. Otherwise it would be required to take the old CLAMS out of circulation in case users decide to switch.

Up until you took that snapshot dooglus this has all just been a discussion.  However, the act of taking that snapshot was an action and Evil does a great job laying out the problem.  You've now created pools of potential (and potential is the key word, another coin may not be created, even if one is you may not use that snapshot) haves and have nots.  I agree that was how clam did it, but given that all this has flowed from how clams were initially distributed, and there are other problems, e.g. getting my coins off exchanges, maybe that is not the best path to replicate.

I still think the best path is weathering the storm of the dig whale and working to make clam stronger and more accepted, JD is a great foundation, but it can't continue to be the only real reason to own clam.

However, if that is not possible because "no one will ever buy clam with the dig whale out there slowly selling for months to come", I don't have any real problem with another coin.  I think it's a fine idea.  New coins are created every day and it might be nice for one to have a built in user base and have been carefully considered.  However, as many others have noted, you may want to consider a "swap" or a "burn" or an IPO as the initial distribution method.  

I think taking a surprise snapshot in the middle of the discussion is why things have taken a bit of a nasty turn both here and in JD chat.  Obviously, I think thoughtful consideration is a good thing and appreciate you trying to foster that with your posts and recaps which I have found excellent.

As with most internet chats, I think you should ignore the people on JD chat who don't want you to share your thinking with the community.  You are one of the sanest, most trusted and intelligent people out there.  Thanks.

[cryptospout]

upon considering the new coin option I would like to present option D: Leave clam as is let nature take its course, if you want to run J-d.com as clam or not is your choice you are the owner you owe nothing to the community as to how you run your site. create a new coin with a new distribution model and either start a fresh site or switch j-d.com to the new coin but do not link anything from clam to the new coin do not try to associate clam to the new coin. This would be the only reasonable approach to a new coin imho as it would not take away from what clam has already has and it would not give people an incentive (free new coins for holding clams at block 73000) to consider clams less valuable. It would also stop most of the whole "saving the majority shareholders / premine" topic

[crazyivan]

I really really wonder how low will the dev team let the price go until they decide to get CLAM forked. Cause the digger s not going to stop, not now and not in 6 months cause I can bet he s got more addresses ready to dig.

Why? No sane person would dump at this rate without saying, wait, if I go slower, I might get much more BTC out of this cause I am effectively destroying the market.

The price went down from 0.006 to 0.001 within 2 moths since he started digging. No other PoS coin has suffered even close price decrease rate and I hold a lot of those.

Once more, if you want CLAM to live, you need to do something cause in 6 months CLAM will be worth peanuts and the diff would be so high it ll be pointless staking. Even now, one needs to invest 10 BTC in order to stake 20 CLAM per week which is 0.02. Let us be honest, there are much better options to make 0.02, if u you plan to invest 10 BTC.

I m not trying to attack CLAM, I have no interest in it anymore, I m just trying to point out this current system is not sustainable and needs to be changed, FAST. Not in 6 months.