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

[jpcfan]

thank god BAC isnt the digger.




j/k BAC

[dooglus]

Clam is one of the few good altcoins. I was disappointed to see people wanting to change the rules because of me. That would kill the coin a lot quicker than anything I could do. When I'm done selling, the price will recover. But if you change the rules, you lose trust and clams will just become like all the other scamcoins.

THIS.

Well, I don't think so.

When he's done selling, someone else will (eventually) start. There are another 14 million or so undug CLAMs out there.

I think a lot of what separates CLAM from "all the other scamcoins" is that an established service requires its use. That is the case whether or not the rules change.

[alrachid]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

[dooglus]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

[marilyn4325]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

We've learned that he doesn't do big dumps and crash the price too much (at least he says that), and we can be more sure of some upper limit of how much more CLAMs are going to be sold at Poloniex in the near future, if no other whale finds some coins.

[jpcfan]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

We've learned that he doesn't do big dumps and crash the price too much (at least he says that), and we can be more sure of some upper limit of how much more CLAMs are going to be sold at Poloniex in the near future, if no other whale finds some coins.

before the digger started clam was $3.83 now its at $0.43

[Zenithar]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

We've learned that he doesn't do big dumps and crash the price too much (at least he says that), and we can be more sure of some upper limit of how much more CLAMs are going to be sold at Poloniex in the near future, if no other whale finds some coins.

before the digger started clam was $3.83 now its at $0.43

post hoc ergo proctor hoc

[Nthused]

You should create a new coin with the same kind of layout but with extended altcoin distribution instead of just btc, ltc and doge addresses and by that I mean the most popular and been around for a while coins.

Perhaps call it SuperClam and the holders of coins of the original CLAM adresses get a significant ammout more of dig/if above a certain deposit size per address then other accepted blockchains.

It's just an idea but also to keep CLAM relevant.

[Trent Russell]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

The posts of curious in this thread seem coherent and rational. That eases my mind a bit. As far as we knew before, it could've been someone who isn't even following the thread.

Probably the most rewarding thing curious could do is stake with what he or she hasn't sold, and sell both the rewards and the distribution more slowly. I suspect the price fall has been exaggerated by fear and uncertainty. Standard disclaimer: none of this should be taken as investment advice.

[kolloh]

I am glad to see "curious" finally come forward. Though we still have quite a few questions but at least there is a bit less uncertainty now.

I didn't see anyone ask the following question:
Why were you digging at such a slow pace as opposed to digging all the addresses at once? I suppose this was intended to hide the true number of coins you had access to?

[Hippie Tech]

Ok, guys. I'm the whale digger. I can prove it if necessary.

Yes, it is true that I am digging and selling my CLAMs for BTC. Though I am not dumping hard. I usually just put asks above the market price. I rarely ever do a market sell order. So although I am adding sell pressure to the price by adding asks to the orderbook, I am not "dumping" technically. The main reason why the price crashed hard is because the fear of me dumping. This lead everyone else to dump. Unfortunately, I made a error in my digging code when I did not randomize my dig addresses. Dooglus noticed this and was smart to figure out the total coins that I have yet to dig. He posted a comment on this thread and THAT was the reason why the price dumped hard. That's how markets work. Oh, and the chat about forking the coin made the price dump even harder.

I decided Yesterday to accelerate the dig but not change my selling strategy. So I should finish digging up all my coins in a few days. Maybe that will alleviate some of the fear. Sure, I will still sell CLAM for BTC when I feel it's a good price. I am not stupid. I will not dump the price to nothing and kill the coin. The market was doing that and not me.

Ask me anything, though I may or may not answer some questions.

Talk about some innovative damage control..

Bring your earlyADOPTERwhoHELPtoFUCKtheCRYPTOcommunity ass over to our community driven investigation of Cryptsy and join in on the trolololol'n fun !

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1173703.0

[nicolaennio]

I've found out about Clams before August and didn't think much about it because it wasn't worth much. In August, I came back to it and realized it was actually worth a lot. So decided to dig them up. I was extremely excited and happy about it obviously.

Somehow this gives evidence to the horrible truth that prospective diggers are harmful to CLAMs (of course unwillingly):

- When CLAMs are not worth much they just don't bother or participate at the coin's success.
- When CLAMs are worth something they step in and flood the market, leading to price lowering and uncertainty.

EDIT: Basically if they control a big wallet they have been given a powerful tool for market manipulation, they sort of know the 'real' amount of available CLAMs (which is the actual number plus what they can dig) and they have an insider information which they can use only at their advantage. In this perspective I'd like to review if it's really "right" to allow them to do so. What if you create a coin and you unwillingly give a detrimental (for you) advantage to a stranger not interested in the coin? Is it wrong to remove that advantage? To put it in a catchy sentence, Clams have given to unknown people the 'right' to damage them. They are masochistic .

[doothewop]

Bring your earlyADOPTERwhoHELPtoFUCKtheCRYPTOcommunity ass over to our community driven investigation of Cryptsy and join in on the trolololol'n fun !

Are you BAC?  Or just an admirer?

[jaysabi]

Having a digger reveal himself gave me 0% more trust in this coin. All seems fishy to me, like there is more to the story.

I don't understand how it could have given anyone any more confidence. We already knew he existed. I don't think we've learned anything new.

I don't think necessarily it's the coming forward, but the other assertions he's made: this is his only wallet, he has no more CLAMs to dig after this, etc. That takes away one tiny unknown and gives us a better understanding of what this specific episode is about. Granted, you have to take him at his word, but that's no different than trusting any other screen name on this forum.

before the digger started clam was $3.83 now its at $0.43

That was a pretty unreasonable price, if you ask me. CLAM was experiencing its own little bubble at the time fueled by the this buying can never backfire mentality that plagued bitcoin in 2013. If you're expecting it to get back to that price, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

[smooth]

There are another 14 million or so undug CLAMs out there.

Yes of course there are. Was that information missing from the OP when you decided to support it?

[dooglus]

Somehow this gives evidence to the horrible truth that prospective diggers are harmful to CLAMs (of course unwillingly):

- When CLAMs are not worth much they just don't bother or participate at the coin's success.
- When CLAMs are worth something they step in and flood the market, leading to price lowering and uncertainty.

I've seen this dynamic analysed in this thread long ago. I don't remember details, but it was being put forward as a positive thing: when the price rises new diggers are encouraged to dig and provide new supply, keeping a cap on the price. In this way the price is moderated and doesn't soar too high.

I guess the difference in this case is the sheer size of the wallet involved.

I find it hard to reason about the rights and wrongs in this case. The developers gave a fixed amount of CLAM to every funded BTC, LTC, DOGE address thinking that that was the fairest way of doing things. Now it turns out that it made for a very unfair distribution, and someone who (maybe) abused a bunch of faucets not only ended up bloating the BTC blockchain but also gets half a million dollars worth of free CLAM. How is that "fair"? Is it wrong to cancel digging because it's wrong to change the initial arbitrary rules? Or is it wrong to allow a single individual to benefit so hugely from his (possible) antisocial behaviour? I don't know.

And like he says, it's too late to do anything about it now. All we can do is decide what to do about the next such guy that turns up.

[smooth]

The developers gave a fixed amount of CLAM to every funded BTC, LTC, DOGE address thinking that that was the fairest way of doing things.

This seems like a straw man. Maybe they thought it was the "fairest" way to do things but that seems somewhat implausible. Does "fairest" even exist?

More likely they thought it was a way to distribute coins to a very wide swath of the cryptocurrency community. I doubt seriously anyone believed that some participants with very large numbers of addresses wouldn't exist, but by distributing to every non-dust address that meant that at least some meaningful number of coins was being distributed to each of a huge number of participants.

If they did believe there wouldn't be people with many addresses, well I guess you can't deny stupidity.

[dooglus]

When he's done selling, someone else will (eventually) start. There are another 14 million or so undug CLAMs out there.

Yes of course there are. Was that information missing from the OP when you decided to support it?

No, it has always been known.

My point is that even though this particular digger claims to only have another 250k CLAMs to dump there's no reason to believe that's the end of the dumping. You took my quote out of context. I've re-added the context above.

[smooth]

When he's done selling, someone else will (eventually) start. There are another 14 million or so undug CLAMs out there.

Yes of course there are. Was that information missing from the OP when you decided to support it?

No, it has always been known.

My point is that even though this particular digger claims to only have another 250k CLAMs to dump there's no reason to believe that's the end of the dumping. You took my quote out of context. I've re-added the context above.

Your context is pointless. No one would claim that selling would ever stop. Selling and buying will continue as long as the coin exists.

There is nothing happening now or in the future that wasn't reasonably foreseeable. If you don't like this coin, create a new one. It is not too late to do that.

[dooglus]

The developers gave a fixed amount of CLAM to every funded BTC, LTC, DOGE address thinking that that was the fairest way of doing things.

This seems like a straw man. Maybe they thought it was the "fairest" way to do things but that seems somewhat implausible. Does "fairest" even exist?

Mere likely they thought it was a way to distribute coins to a very wide swath of the cryptocurrency community. I doubt seriously anyone believed that some participants with very large numbers of addresses wouldn't exist, but by distributing to every non-dust address that meant that at least some meaningful number of coins was being distributed to a huge number of participants.

If they did believe there wouldn't be people with many addresses, well I guess you can't deny stupidity.

Fair point. It should have been obvious that some people have more funded addresses than others.