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

[cryptospout]

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

100% of your statistics are bullshit

[1715209749]

1715209749

[BayAreaCoins]

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

100% of your statistics are bullshit

Second cryptosprout.

[doothewop]

I won't!

So you're saying basically that, no matter what, you're against it. 

[navaman]

At this point I am discussion weary. I don't care what we do as long as the final decision comes soon. I will support whatever dooglus wants to do.

+1 i am also in favor of this.

+1 i will support dooglus too.

I won't!

If there will be no votes, then this coins will lose faith entirely.
If there will be votes, I will make sure that I have enough coins/votes to prevent "expropriating" a few holders: you guys cannot be serious about what you are discussing.

Last nigh, in JD chat, I had a discussion precisely on this issue.  The position of the other party is that owning a digital coin is not really owning it and certainly not private property.  Plus, these are experimental and change is necessary.  My question is what is the status of the holders of this digital currency?  Most importantly, what is the ownership status of the people who have yet to dig their clams?  

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

One other item that is irritating, I think CC takes economics issues surrounding the emergence of a digital currency seriously as it is clear she paid attention in her economic classes.  It is quite obvious that a substantial number of participants didn't and are, by and large, ignorant of finance and monetary issues.  Like the person mentioned above who doesn't think that owning a digital currency is private property, many seem oblivious to the trust needed in managing the money supply.  For those that haven't figured it out yet, the blockchain based financial system is looking more and more like the fiat based one most despise.  There is no reason to reinvent the wheel and the same issues that plague fiat will come to digital.  It is only a matter of time.  Silicon Valley has promised a revolution in finance several times now but what we have seen is new technology fit into the old infrastructure to make it more productive.  This is not to say some PhD will have a better ability to make decisions and experiments have shown that academics aren't really experts as they have less predictive power than randomness or Bubbles the chimp.  I would have greatly preferred Bubbles to Ben Bernanke as the former pretty clearly has a better head on his shoulders. What we need is people who have a good mental model and understand that emotions are part of them not the ignorance and ruled by emotion that is driving this.  (The above comment is directed at a substantial minority, perhaps a plurality, but it is quite obvious fairly quick who has an understanding of economics, those who at least have the right mental model and those who have no idea.)

Another issue I have is why this is an issue at all.  Dooglus said he was just responding to the people in the thread which is fine.  However, keep in mind that many of us and probably a good majority has repeatedly asked the simple question what is the problem or crisis?  It isn't very helpful to write "nothing" in a post and that's about sums up my attitude towards this.  If writing wasn't a painful exercise, I would have written more and perhaps will address some issues in the future.  One thing I will say right now is that there are a lot financial crisis which are of the subset of currency related.  They happen all the time and yet there isn't a problem and there ends up being no real crisis at all.  These are ignored by academics and thrown out but one of prominent methods to ascertain if a crisis is happening has a lot of false signals.  Besides, a large move down, what is the issue?  On the other hand, it is popular among certain people to claim there was no financial crisis between the enactment of Glass-Steagall which is in fact wrong.  There are several during the 65 year period.  One is the Latin American debt crisis in which Brady Bonds were issued.  Another is the S&L crisis that took a few hundred billion to clean up.  You could say that Bretton Woods collapse was a currency crisis.  There was a subprime crisis a decade before this past one in the late 90's.  I'm sure I can come up with a few more if i go through my notes and look up a few data sets.  Once again, there are a few who can understand what I just wrote but how many here have their eyes glaze over.  Final question, how does our to do compare to any of the fiat crisis we have experienced in recent years?

I don't leave this in a pretty place as it is quite obvious that many of the decisions will be wrong.  The public is ignorant and rent seekers just as much as Wall Street.  The economic experts really have a degree in applied math and need never open an introductory book, take economics 101 or ever have held an actual job outside of the PhD qualifacated ones.  So, the fewer decisions and changes that are made to the basic structure the better is my advice.  If you are going to make fundamental changes, besides expropriating clams, they should be done now before the economic infrastructure gets built around Clams.

That is all.

[Domrada]

I don't leave this in a pretty place as it is quite obvious that many of the decisions will be wrong.  The public is ignorant and rent seekers just as much as Wall Street.  The economic experts really have a degree in applied math and need never open an introductory book, take economics 101 or ever have held an actual job outside of the PhD qualifacated ones.  So, the fewer decisions and changes that are made to the basic structure the better is my advice.  If you are going to make fundamental changes, besides expropriating clams, they should be done now before the economic infrastructure gets built around Clams.

That is all.

So, to paraphrase, the public is ignorant, economic experts don't understand economics, and PhD's are useless. That's an awful lot of angst. Go take a spin class or something is my advice.

[cloverme]

Well, I hope clam stays as it is. I understand that the digger is ruining the value, but it can't last forever.  Too much supply too soon was a reality.  Sadly, the digger is damaging their own value holdings, maybe he/she doesn't care, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario.  It's possible that clam may not survive this, but I'm still looking forward to the new client with the "voting" via clamspeech and whatnot.

[navaman]

I don't leave this in a pretty place as it is quite obvious that many of the decisions will be wrong.  The public is ignorant and rent seekers just as much as Wall Street.  The economic experts really have a degree in applied math and need never open an introductory book, take economics 101 or ever have held an actual job outside of the PhD qualifacated ones.  So, the fewer decisions and changes that are made to the basic structure the better is my advice.  If you are going to make fundamental changes, besides expropriating clams, they should be done now before the economic infrastructure gets built around Clams.

That is all.

So, to paraphrase, the public is ignorant, economic experts don't understand economics, and PhD's are useless. That's an awful lot of angst. Go take a spin class or something is my advice.

Sums it up pretty well.  However, I get my exercise walking the dog.  Next time we will discuss how information flows through an economy and the futility of making a decision in the aggregate by individual policy makers.

[tspacepilot]

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

[deodecagone]

So, If i understand correctly the mess here and sorry if I am only a neophyte here,

The main selling point was :

The fair distribution with the (smart) proof of blockchain.

And the investors on exchanges rewarded the principle with a decent value taking into account that many wouldn't claim their clam

But then some reknown member, suddenly, by fear of people selling on the same markets,  think that they may discard the underlying fair distribution model , create another coin with a different distribution model and is hoping it is going to have as much value ? No, just no, the another coin will just be yet another crap.
 Also, people are concerned that people hoard coins or claim their clam as per the blockchain "fair" distribution ,... meh... wasn't it the point (risky) that was making the value of it ? Aren't you chasing fairies here ?
Sound like the insiders are shooting at themselves.

Forking is ok. Forking yourselfs raises questions

[AltcoinScamfinder]

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

100% of your statistics are bullshit

Oh noes, a child online called my math bad

[AltcoinScamfinder]

Pretty sure 90% of the community is for ANY kind of solution that's anything but 'Let's wait and see' BS.

100% of your statistics are bullshit

Second cryptosprout.

REALLY? You are saying that you are against something that would flush your scammy side business down the drain? No, say it ain't so

[bearbear]

Time to short this one coin 
That is a long time I haven't seen a self imploding one.

[StudyEconomics]

Clam is one of the best coins in my opinion. Right now the economics suggest a good time to pick up more in my opinion.

[chilly2k]

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

   Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin?    I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change.  If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change.  He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.  

[tspacepilot]

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

   Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin?    I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change.  If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change.  He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.  

I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention.  What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after.  I hope that clarifies.  Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case.  I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).

[chilly2k]

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

   Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin?    I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change.  If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change.  He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.  

I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention.  What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after.  I hope that clarifies.  Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case.  I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).

   That's cool, But I don't think we're going to get many comments from folks that haven't dug their clams yet.  I believe I saw one comment from someone with a few un-dug clams, but I would say the vast majority of un-dug clams are held by people that either lost the private key, or have not heard of clams. 

   

[tspacepilot]

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

   Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin?    I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change.  If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change.  He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.  

I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention.  What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after.  I hope that clarifies.  Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case.  I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).

   That's cool, But I don't think we're going to get many comments from folks that haven't dug their clams yet.  I believe I saw one comment from someone with a few un-dug clams, but I would say the vast majority of un-dug clams are held by people that either lost the private key, or have not heard of clams. 

   

Indeed.  But (almost) all of us were in that situation at some point---possessing undug CLAMs, most likely unaware of their existence.  It's literally these folks, people who were given clams in the initial distribution who have not dug them yet, who are potentially harmed by rule changes.   And yet, as you say, they aren't really here to speak up for themselves.

[jaysabi]

It's not value destruction as long as the economy is growing with the money supply,

You can say it's not value destruction, but it's all least value transfer. My $1000 that I saved last year won't buy as much now as it would then. The value I have lost maybe now exists in the pocket of some government employee or central banker, so OK it wasn't destroyed. But I no longer control it.

Fiat (and Bitcoin) inflation devalues saver holdings to the benefit of the people who get the newly created money.

unless those sites grow their gambling base at the same rate as CLAM inflation, isn't inflation devaluing the coin?

No. It devalues each unit of the coin, but each (staking) holder gains units to compensate for that devaluation, resulting in 0% net value loss.

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.

Suppose you have 100 CLAM and the price is 0.01 BTC per CLAM. You have 1 BTC worth of CLAM.

Suppose staking doubles your holding each year and halves the price each year.

By the end of the year, you'll have 200 CLAM and the price is 0.05 BTC per CLAM. You still have 1 BTC worth of CLAM.

You can cry that the price of CLAM in BTC has halved, but who cares? You still have 1 BTC worth of it, so it doesn't matter.

The only person complain is the guy who didn't bother staking for that year. He still has 100 CLAM, but now it's only worth 0.5 BTC. That's the incentive to stake.

But this equilibrium that you cite in your example isn't what is happening. The whale digger is obfuscating the inflationary effect by introducing non-recurring inflation on a much larger scale. If he didn't exist, you would still see a falling CLAM price over long periods of time because you can't do much with CLAM except gamble and stake, so to realize any benefit of holding CLAMs you eventually have to cash out. The exchange rate of CLAM to USD or BTC is set by people who are buying CLAM, either to initiate a position or increase their holdings, and the more CLAMs that exist when they do, the less each has to be worth. So while your staking income preserves your share of the existing CLAM base within the system, that doesn't mean it preserves the btc value you put into it.

If the economy (utility) of CLAM doesn't grow as fast as staking inflation, the exchange rate between CLAM and USD falls faster than your staking income, despite the fact that your staking income preserves your share of the existing CLAM base.

[beLiefs]

Well, I hope clam stays as it is. I understand that the digger is ruining the value, but it can't last forever.  Too much supply too soon was a reality.  Sadly, the digger is damaging their own value holdings, maybe he/she doesn't care, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario.  It's possible that clam may not survive this, but I'm still looking forward to the new client with the "voting" via clamspeech and whatnot.

Let us not allow the tragedy of the commons become the tyranny of the commons.

“the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” -John Adams

The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain.  The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community.  I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making.  These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty.  Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.  

This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.  It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters.  That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution.  Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.

Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive when the community is not composed entirely of individuals possessing both freedom of thought, and truth of spirit. Such traits exist in a shocking minority in these times. This is the main issue here, and it has troubled me deeply since this matter arose. Navaman is right, but I cannot say why. The teachings of the Church of Reason elude me these days. I am convinced that this is the problem, but I can offer no solution. Even the Bastion of Liberty -- The great Constitutional Republic -- has proven to only be a stop-gap measure. I have no answers, but I do know that we must be very cautious here -- we are playing with things far greater than ourselves.

[bobboooiie]

If I have any say to this, I would let clam be clam and not do anything, its unfortunate someone has that much clams but if we can survive that we can survive anything. And he is selling all of them anyway if I understand it correctly so nothing 51%-esque is going to happen.