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

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 The distribution model was experimental, and maybe things that should have been identified when the decision was originally made, weren't.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

[danonthehill]

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?

Apologies. Yes I do.  I wasn't aware of that.  However, that helps explain why there is a large holder/digger in the coin who has no (emotional/rational) stake in the future of Clam and just sees it as representing BTC profit.  Many people day and margin trade this coin without any real personal interest or stake in the future development or survival of Clam or Clam 2.0, so how exactly is this learning from previous mistakes?  With the secret retrospective snapshot, the exact same result could occur i.e. large holder who wants to dump only for profit. Or am I missing something? Either way, in terms of PR, the way this is being handled is a disaster.  

IMO I think best to leave as is.  

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

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.

You're not responsible for "the best", or for CLAM.  You're responsible for Dooglus.  The internet is full of self-styled "victims" looking for someone to blame for their decisions.  That will never end.

Fuck it - take it all and put it on red, or 00.  Repeat 'til finished.  Then do a Satoshi.  He's revered, despite all the gnashing of teeth over blocksize, TXID malleability, large holdings, linkability, and all the other BTC imperfections.

[Chuck_Bartowski]

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.

+1 and yet i see no issue really with forking the coin, personally i would say the digging part was a mistake from start and afaik the main developers were told this could be an issue but was ignored (correct me if iam wrong there).

also i want to give dooglus my kudos how he handles the situation and i look forward to here from the main devs and not only from him, but imho a new coin isnt the best solution...

Greetings, Chuck

[gamblingbad]

I would support most of the alternatives, what ever dooglus choose or get people voting on.
1. Contunies everything as it is.
2. Changeing clam rules to not allow digging
3. Use a snapshot of clamchain to base a new coin on
Thats all fine for me.

But i think most investors wont support anything when its unknown.

You can also say everything will continue as normal and there will be taken a new snapshot in future a few days before a the new coin will be made.
It can be based on both snapshot or the last one.
Then people can safetly buy clam without worry jd will get a new coin.

[thefix]

I would support most of the alternatives, what ever you choose or get people voting on.
1. Contunies everything as it is.
2. Changeing clam rules to not allow digging
3. Use a snapshot of clamchain to base a new coin on
Thats all fine for me.

But i think most investors wont support anything when its unknown.

You can also say everything will continue as normal and there will be taken a new snapshot in future a few days before a the new coin will be made.
It can be based on both snapshot or the last one.
Then people can safetly buy clam without worry jd will get a new coin.

Snapshot would have to be in the past to avoid manipulation

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[gamblingbad]

I would support most of the alternatives, what ever you choose or get people voting on.
1. Contunies everything as it is.
2. Changeing clam rules to not allow digging
3. Use a snapshot of clamchain to base a new coin on
Thats all fine for me.

But i think most investors wont support anything when its unknown.

You can also say everything will continue as normal and there will be taken a new snapshot in future a few days before a the new coin will be made.
It can be based on both snapshot or the last one.
Then people can safetly buy clam without worry jd will get a new coin.

Snapshot would have to be in the past to avoid manipulation

2 days or a week before coin was made would be in past when coin was ready. But when saying take snapshot now and not have any real plans yet to make a coin make people not want to buy. And what manipulation you talk about? People buy more clam and price goes up you mean to secure getting the new coin? And after people got new coin clam market will drop far down.