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

[BayAreaCoins]

My scammy side business... How is it scammy? Last I checked we are paying the most per fresh dig on the market if dug right. (including diggin with your own CLIENT or Just-dice)
I built a service around the core of CLAM. These people have the right to dig the coins that were given to them... rights shouldn't be voted on.
I guess I have no vote in CLAM because I was smart and sold off high... there is no way I'd buy back in (via markets) with all this sclamming going on between Dooglus and pals.
It's very obvious that voting doesn't matter. So just do what yall are going to do and ppl can close their businesses/leave feedback.

An interesting side-note:

Once we get the petition system implemented you are welcome to petition that someone else controls the "SuperCLAM" account.

Can you do it without all of your sock-puppets?
Possibly.

If so, I think that is reasonable and will comply.

This really annoys me more every time I read it.  I don't have any sock-puppets because I can say whatever the fuck I want... until you nuke it anyways.  I'm not scared of you and I'm happy to stand alone.  If someone else is posting I can assure you that it isn't me.

[1715167510]

1715167510

[1715167510]

1715167510

[1715167510]

1715167510

[jpcfan]

I've been gone for the last week. did i miss anything?

[seedtrue]

I've been gone for the last week. did i miss anything?

[BayAreaCoins]

I've been gone for the last week. did i miss anything?

LOL Good one.

[rychallenge]

I've been gone for the last week. did i miss anything?

go check the exchange rate

[SuperClam]

First - I want to be very clear that I do not consider a crypto network a company or stock offering.
I was simpy suggesting there are parallels.

That said:

In the latter case, there is a legal right to elect a board, which in turn gives control over management and ultimately the assets (shareholders can even vote to dissolve the corporation, which gives them access to the assets directly).
There are no such powers that exist on the part of coin holders.

I would argue, given how liquid exchange is between crypto markets and the transfer-ability of advantage between networks, that coin holders have more control.
It is a near zero fee (ignoring spread) proposition to reallocate resources.

Stock in major public corporations is more liquid than cryptocurrencies (particularly smaller alts) and fees are as low or lower. Smaller corporations and private corporations are less liquid to illiquid of course.
I don't understand the relevance of what you are saying though. If stock or coins change hands, nothing about that process allows stockholders or coin holders to exercise authority over the corporation or the coin network itself. All that happens is one owner is replaced by another.

Ref: "There are no such powers that exist on the part of coin holders."
The network does not exist without users.
Users which choose which version of software to run.
Users which choose which protocol rules to execute on their system.
In proof-of-stake, this additionally implies control of block creation.
How much more "power" is possible?

The debacle around Bitcoin XT illustrates just how 'legal' it is to 'elect a board'.
If Bitcoin XT had dominated the nodes and stakeholders on the network, it would have been the equivalent of "electing" Gavin and Hearn to the board of directors.

I don't understand this paragraph at all

What do a "Board (of directors)" do?
They hire the executive officers of the company and are generally responsible for management of the company for the shareholders.

If the users(shareholders) of BTC had switched to the XT software it would have placed Gavin and Hearn in charge of the Bitcoin network codebase.
What are the protocol rules, other than the policies of the network(company)?

There are really only two things that coin holders can do:
1. Stake according to the network rules and their own individual best interests and without collusion, which makes the network secure provided that the stake is adequately distributed.
2. Individually or in collusion with other coin holders, stake maliciously and "51% attack" the network. This can include: a) blocking all transactions in a sort of doomsday button to destroy the coin, b) selectively blocking transactions (and/or blocks) to gain some advantage for the attacker, c) rewrite the chain to perform double spend attacks.
This idea of coin holder voting is creating a system that facilities and to an extent legitimizes #2. It makes the entire system less secure and therefore ultimately less valuable, even though it may seem expedient in the short term for the purposes of "governance", especially if you happen to be in the majority.

I categorically disagree.
I do not believe there is any redeemable argument against creating a system in which network participants can express their opinion about the direction of development.
The alternative is that the development team pays no mind what-so-ever to the users of the network.

You are entitled to disagree of course, but everything I said about the mechanism by which blockchains function was correct (as far as I know -- if someone spots an error please point it out so I can correct it).

You have characterized the situation where all clients do not agree on the state of the chain as "51% attacks".
That isn't accurate.
By characterizing every disagreement in this way, you've labelled every fork in the history of crypto as a "51% attack".

The power to choose which protocol rules you apply, and hence what the current state of the chain is to your client, is the most fundamental power that a user possesses.

I already answered this. You don't like my answer. It did not involve shills on bitcointalk.

Your answer was essentially: Do nothing, never fork.
Is that correct?

If so, that isn't a valid choice.

Not because it isn't a valid result of all of this, it is; but, because we weren't discussing a fork.

We were discussing a method for the network to express what is desired by stakeholders.
This is verifiable, no other polling method is - that I am aware of.

[gregor12]

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?

Do it.

[Hippie Tech]

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.

Pardon the delayed response ..

You must be a narcissistic basket case if you expect us to believe that you and/or whoever cloned this shit, was able to resist salting the snapshot with thousands of your cryptofiat addresses.

Are you and/or SuperClam the evil digger ?

You and your sock/shill parade will soon be exposed.

[GordoZ]

Hi. I´m not very active here, but there goes my opinion.
Me, as much of the people, don´t like to have to trust in a new coin. It´s very difficult event hold my clams and don´t sell.
I won´t like at all if I have to burn Clams for another currency, that we don´t know if will be trustable.
In the other side, if this new coin "takes the screenshot" of the Clam blockchain and "gift" the coins to all Clam users it will be ok, but, if we already have people that sod theys Clams becausse there get them free, will happend the same in this new coin?
Saludos.

[xamido]

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

[NUFCrichard]

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

I tend to agree with this. If the whole problem with the coin is a super-digger, then there isn't really a problem at all.
Whatever happens, it needs to be done soon.  Why would someone buy now when they might end up with CLAMS alone, whereas other holders will have CLAMs + Doogs

There is little incentive to buy with so much uncertainty around the future of CLAMS.  Essentially whichever coin JD uses will be the coin of value, so I would back Dooglus generally.  If he wants to limit digging, then I would rather that to a new coin.

[hunterwolf]

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

totaly agree.

i like CLAM, i have some, but already price down nearly %50 last month. i'm still wait, if this continue, i will sell my coin and switch another, and i believe too many people thinking like me.
if you release new coin, you lost maybe half of clam user. After that who invest new coin, you and some people? i think too low change for new investor and new community.
Because everywhere coin, like coin trash, why i trust any new coin from this time.

sorry for bad language.

  

[edmundduke]

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

I tend to agree with this. If the whole problem with the coin is a super-digger, then there isn't really a problem at all.
Whatever happens, it needs to be done soon.  Why would someone buy now when they might end up with CLAMS alone, whereas other holders will have CLAMs + Doogs

There is little incentive to buy with so much uncertainty around the future of CLAMS.  Essentially whichever coin JD uses will be the coin of value, so I would back Dooglus generally.  If he wants to limit digging, then I would rather that to a new coin.

It really is hard to know where this road goes but i have to agree that the coin that JD uses will be the more profitable (i know there is a chance that both will be used, but have a feeling most would move into only "Doog's" coin) and so many of the investors would abandon CLAM. I really hope there is a good solution to the issue.

[jaysabi]

This conversation has been quite muddled with people advocating for a very broad range of things, and I'm a bit lost. Where do we stand currently? Are we determining the best way to have a vote or solicit feedback from the community, or are we still determining the merits of even having a vote?

[navaman]

SuperClam, coins are not corporations. In the latter case, there is a legal right to elect a board, which in turn gives control over management and ultimately the assets (shareholders can even vote to dissolve the corporation, which gives them access to the assets directly).

There are no such powers that exist on the part of coin holders. There are really only two things that coin holders can do:

2. Individually or in collusion with other coin holders, stake maliciously and "51% attack" the network. This can include: a) blocking all transactions in a sort of doomsday button to destroy the coin, b) selectively blocking transactions (and/or blocks) to gain some advantage for the attacker, c) rewrite the chain to perform double spend attacks.

This idea of coin holder voting is creating a system that facilities and to an extent legitimizes #2. It makes the entire system less secure and therefore ultimately less valuable, even though it may seem expedient in the short term for the purposes of "governance", especially if you happen to be in the majority.

I am going to steal this.



CC, somebody in JD chat has repeatedly stated that this coin is experimental.  Due to this, he, let's call him Uck for the time being, the experiment can be changed at any time and therefore rules such as digging or staking can be altered for the sake of improvement.  What is your position on the experimental nature Clams?  Were the people who sunk $1000's into the coin aware of this?  How do you feel about changing an experiment mid-stream because you don't like the outcome?  This is assuming of course that the hypothesis is along the lines introducing a digital currency as a means of exchange and not technical.  Should we get into a discussion of his fallacy that any change is good or an improvement.  Unfortunately, his line of thinking has infected even hard sciences as publish or perish rules and the rankings game persist.

I would write more but pain has returned.

[crazyivan]

If you continue with the new coin, watch as everyone loses instead. Nobody's going to trust that new coin, and the old clam will be left behind since the trust is broken.

Focus on just this coin and how to fix it.

totaly agree.

i like CLAM, i have some, but already price down nearly %50 last month. i'm still wait, if this continue, i will sell my coin and switch another, and i believe too many people thinking like me.
if you release new coin, you lost maybe half of clam user. After that who invest new coin, you and some people? i think too low change for new investor and new community.
Because everywhere coin, like coin trash, why i trust any new coin from this time.

sorry for bad language.

  

This discussion can move on for months and nothing ll be done about it. It s so simple. Digging is the main issue. Let Clam users vote, if majority of addresses votes for abolishing of digging, fork the coin and do it. If not, do whatever majority wants. I repeat, if CLAM is designed to server the digger and few selected users, then the community needs to know this so we can move on into something else. Pls stop offering complicated solutions which need 3 years to get implemented. The coin 3/4 of its value since the digger emerged so it s clear, he or they are the biggest problem. So, solve the problem, do not be afraid to say this digging model does not work as it should. The most simple solution is often the best one.

[fible1]

Hey Guys,
    Is there a White Paper I can take a look at anywhere?

TL/DR: Whats this "Digger" issue?

Thanks,
  Pablo.

[jaysabi]

Hey Guys,
    Is there a White Paper I can take a look at anywhere?

TL/DR: Whats this "Digger" issue?

Thanks,
  Pablo.

The short version: Someone with access to a great many CLAM-seeded addresses has been digging up a lot of new CLAMs and releasing them into the market. The sudden flood of CLAMs has pushed the price of CLAM very low. People are now debating what, if anything, to do about this.

See Doog's chart below for a visual representation of what is happening. The appearance of the "whale digger" is the cause of concern.

[fible1]

Ah, I see. Interesting.

Thanks for the data.

Pablo.

[Chuck_Bartowski]

CC, somebody in JD chat has repeatedly stated that this coin is experimental.

Cryptocurrency in general is experimental, even Bitcoin, possible we have in some years another leading cryptocurrency or not, who knows.

 Due to this, he, let's call him Uck for the time being, the experiment can be changed at any time and therefore rules such as digging or staking can be altered for the sake of improvement. 

the question is not, if the coin can be altered or not, the main question would be in what way, by the community or the creators of the coin.

Unfortunately, his line of thinking has infected even hard sciences as publish or perish rules and the rankings game persist.

actually i feel quite infected by your strong believe nothing should be changed and all is set in stone..

I would write more but pain has returned.

Hope you feel better soon...

PS: Greet your buddy, lets call him Avaman..