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

[djhomeschool]

How about an updated chart of this digging activity?

[1715215303]

1715215303

[1715215303]

1715215303

[1715215303]

1715215303

[xploited]

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

All coins are experimental to one degree or another. All of crypto currency in fact is a giant experiment and the outcome still hasn't been decided from what I can tell.

Bitcoin, the least experimental of any coin at this point still has major debates about changing things that would effect the protocol and potentially the users of the network in unforeseen ways. If that doesn't scream experimental I don't know what does.

We all signed up to be part of the experiment when we became interested in crypto currency. Thats my opinion at least.

[smooth]

Why would someone buy now when they might end up with CLAMS alone, whereas other holders will have CLAMs + Doogs

I have explained many times by now that the best way to create a new coin as a variant of an old coin^* is to set the cutoff date well in the future, and shortly before the actual launch of the second network (theoretically at the same time but practically a short interval might be preferable).

Anyone buying CLAM before the launch of the other coin would also receive the new coin, so there is no loss of trust or value. Regardless of which coin thrives (or if by chance both do), anyone who bought in before the split would receive the same value.

This approach is economically the same as forking the chain with an update, without the technical risks associated with transactions that are portable between forks. The trade off is some extra effort needed to get buy in from exchanges and other participants to handle the split correctly, but this largely substitutes for the effort necessary to get consistent upgrades across the entire network for a fork. So in the end, especially for a smaller coin with only one exchange and a few sites, the extra effort seems small.

Once the new coin does exist, then both would trade independently and people can buy whichever one they like (or both or neither).

Of course, I've also said that anyone can create any coin at any time, or for that matter fork code and create update clients that fork the existing network if they want (as long as they can get people to use their code). So following my proposed procedure is not and can't be made mandatory. It just has the least negative effects all around.

^* Except when it is clear that virtually everyone prefers the variant in which case it is perfectly fine to make the change "in place" on the existing network.

[danonthehill]

Why would someone buy now when they might end up with CLAMS alone, whereas other holders will have CLAMs + Doogs

I have explained many times by now that the best way to create a new coin as a variant of an old coin^* is to set the cutoff date well in the future, and shortly before the actual launch of the second network (theoretically at the same time but practically a short interval might be preferable).

Anyone buying CLAM before the launch of the other coin would also receive the new coin, so there is no loss of trust or value. Regardless of which coin thrives (or if by chance both do), anyone who bought in before the split would receive the same value.

This approach is economically the same as forking the chain with an update, without the technical risks associated with transactions that are portable between forks. The trade off is some extra effort needed to get buy in from exchanges and other participants to handle the split correctly, but this largely substitutes for the effort necessary to get consistent upgrades across the entire network for a fork. So in the end, especially for a smaller coin with only one exchange and a few sites, the extra effort seems small.

Once the new coin does exist, then both would trade independently and people can buy whichever one they like (or both or neither).

Of course, I've also said that anyone can create any coin at any time, or for that matter fork code and create update clients that fork the existing network if they want (as long as they can get people to use their code). So following my proposed procedure is not and can't be made mandatory. It just has the least negative effects all around.

^* Except when it is clear that virtually everyone prefers the variant in which case it is perfectly fine to make the change "in place" on the existing network.

I have no idea why there is resistance to this idea.  A future snapshot would bolster CLAM market and provide some resistance to short term dumps from digger.  And if people are worried that a future snapshot would lead to decline in CLAM price after snapshot, is that not infinitely preferable to the complete obliteration of CLAM price forever if adherence to a previous snapshot is announced (not to mention, the negative effect on trust this would have).  Ultimately, any short term dip in CLAM price after a future snapshot would not matter because everyone who owned CLAM would have the opportunity to either receive new token or exit CLAM at a higher price.

[danonthehill]

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

[BayAreaCoins]

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

It appears it is being left alone for the time being and all is well.

CreativeClam is going to make a proposal that the CLAM rich vote be worth more than the CLAM poor ppl in the community here soon.

Dooglus is back in his JD tinkering hole for the moment and no new coin from there it seems.  He is letting CreativeClam (superclam) take "control" of the project again since shes back. *shrugs*

Creative are you still prego?

[DrkLvr_]

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

Pure speculation on your part. This might be true, or it might not. Or it might be partially true. No one really knows..  the price has been down to these levels even before any talk of another coin.

You also don't know what the seller's intentions are unless you're the seller. Maybe he wouldn't mind selling at those levels. Maybe it's the digger putting part of his stash on the ask instead of dumping. Either way, i don't really see how anyone is being played.. unless you're talking about people who are easily manipulated into panic buying or selling.. but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now. 

[doothewop]

but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now. 

Tell me, what was the expression on your face as you typed this line?

[BayAreaCoins]

but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now. 

Tell me, what was the expression on your face as you typed this line?

[DrkLvr_]

but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now. 

Tell me, what was the expression on your face as you typed this line?

There was a slight smirk i won't lie. But still, out of 100 people how many will panic sell just because of a big sell order? A few maybe. The statement stands.

[danonthehill]

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

Pure speculation on your part. This might be true, or it might not. Or it might be partially true. No one really knows..  the price has been down to these levels even before any talk of another coin.

You also don't know what the seller's intentions are unless you're the seller. Maybe he wouldn't mind selling at those levels. Maybe it's the digger putting part of his stash on the ask instead of dumping. Either way, i don't really see how anyone is being played.. unless you're talking about people who are easily manipulated into panic buying or selling.. but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now. 

Well, the dominant troll box narrative is not concerning the digger, but the uncertainy regarding the value of CLAM because of a competing token based on a past snapshot.  This contradicts the digger narrative perpetuated and used to justify contentious forks here. Of course, it's very easy to run with the "perhaps it's the digger" Keyser Soze narrative.

[DrkLvr_]

BTW price has not recovered from last dump...not because of fear future dumps from digger, but because fear and uncertainty sourounding the future development of CLAM, which was brought into question with the notion of creating a competing coin, to be distributed to only some current holders of CLAM and to no new purchasers of CLAM.  

That and the fact market is being suppressed i.e. that 25K sell wall @0.004 Do you really think that guy's intention is to sell or to buy more at a cheaper price? You guys are being played like a violin.

Pure speculation on your part. This might be true, or it might not. Or it might be partially true. No one really knows..  the price has been down to these levels even before any talk of another coin.

You also don't know what the seller's intentions are unless you're the seller. Maybe he wouldn't mind selling at those levels. Maybe it's the digger putting part of his stash on the ask instead of dumping. Either way, i don't really see how anyone is being played.. unless you're talking about people who are easily manipulated into panic buying or selling.. but i think most of the cryptoheads are immune to this by now.  

Well, the dominant troll box narrative is not concerning the digger, but the uncertainy regarding the value of CLAM because of a competing token based on a past snapshot.  This contradicts the digger narrative perpetuated and used to justify contentious forks here. Of course, it's very easy to run with the "perhaps it's the digger" Keyser Soze narrative.

When you say dominant, do you mean when you were last in the troll box?  

There are a few reasons why the price is so low.. digger and the uncertainty for sure being the main ones.. but what's the alternative? What else can you do when issues come up except hash things out and try to come up with a solution (even if the solution might be to do nothing in the end)

"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity" - Albert Einstein  

[danonthehill]

One thing to consider is that CLAM is a margin traded coin and it's unlikely a new token would be unless it takes the form of CLAM 2.0 serving as a replacement of CLAM via snapshot, swap or burn.  

Also, any new coin which does not take this form and departs from the CLAM brand, will need new branding and major active marketing and development, perhaps to a greater degree than CLAM because of it's smaller distribution.  Why would anyone jeopardize all the great work already done?  It's ludicrous and would be self-destructive...some of these ideas that were "hashed out" should just be written off as a PR blunder.

[DrkLvr_]

One thing to consider is that CLAM is a margin traded coin and it's unlikely a new token would be unless it takes the form of CLAM 2.0 serving as a replacement of CLAM via snapshot, swap or burn.  

Also, any new coin which does not take this form and departs from the CLAM brand, will need new branding and major active marketting and development, perhaps to a greater degree than CLAM because of it's smaller distribution.  Why would anyone jeopardize all the great work already done?  It's ludicrous and would be self-destructive...some of these ideas that were "hashed out" should just be written off as a PR blunder.

Right, but anyone can start a new coin for any reason, and that includes dooglus. If he wants to fork CLAMs and accept it on JD, does that really disrupt CLAM in a significant way? It's up to him or whoever else forks a new coin to brand, market and develop it. Why do you think the work done on CLAM would be jeopardized at all?

[danonthehill]

I see, so JustdiceCoin has nothing to do with the development of CLAM coin, so GTFO and let's move forward with CLAM. 

"Why do you think the work done on CLAM would be jeopardized at all?"  Look son, I don't have time to explain the bleeding obvious to you....market sentiment and PR and inextricably linked. 

[danonthehill]

I am actually supporting what I see is a positive solution i.e. future snapshot (if coin needs to be forked at all), or more subtle changes...anything to avoid the kamikaze clownery that was intitally suggested.

[tspacepilot]

Well, all I see on the last few pages here is griping and poking at each other.  In any case, I'm glad that the panic seems to have subsided.  If there are going to be serious changes to CLAM, they definitely need to be made in the environment of calm, rational discussion, not as reactions to someone selling on the marketplace.  I suppose that after the poking at each other subsides, rational discussion could begin again here.

[SuperClam]

Re: 90% of recent posts

The decision to institute a "petition"/"voting" process was a solution worked out and agreed to by xploited, dooglus, and creativecuriosity.

I would assume, certainly for the time being, that means all the talk of a forked coin is irrelevant.
Sorry if that wasn't clear from my previous posts.

The specific details concerning the petition process and the first petition will be worked out soon and announced.

[danonthehill]

We are announcing the topic of the first of these petitions: the process and continuation of "digging" distribution CLAM.
In the coming days, we will announce the timing, choices and assist users in properly submitting "votes" using the process.


The first petition will likely be simplified - but, we see this as an enduring way forward with governance.

This process will allow the entire community to ascertain what petitions have majority support among stakeholders (and is hence likely to succeed given completed code).
The community can then proceed informed and collaborate on getting the code ready to submit to the community.


We invite the community to help us hone the list of choices prior to the start of the voting on this first petition.

Long Live The Great CLAM!

OK. I misread this and thought you were looking for suggestions in general, so right now discussion should be focussed on choices for the vote on "the process and continuation of "digging" distribution CLAM"...a decision which might make a fork redundant. Good.

[jpcfan]

my inside sources say, there isnt going to be another coin.





long live CLAM