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

[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.

[Nthused]

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.

250k Undug by 1 Individual.... Holy Cow, like seriously I was lucky enough to get 9.2 CLAM !

[jaysabi]

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.

As far as "fairest" goes, it seems relative. What are the options when you're launching a coin, is it essentially pre-mine, pre-seed, or everyone starts with 0 and it's a race to acquire? In a landscape littered with worthless alts, that last option isn't helpful because you can't attract an audience to yet another new coin if you don't stand out, so you need something that grabs attention and widely distributes from the start. Pre-seeding seems like a logical answer because pre-mined coins always carry the stigma of being pumpers for the developers, and pre-seeding at least gives you wide distribution in a more fair fashion. Naturally, the unintended consequences of that have arisen. Whether or not they could have been foreseen isn't very important to me, unless you're making the argument that the whale digger is also a developer, and manipulated the system for his own gain. The goal was wide distribution in as fair as possible a manner to give the coin a running start, and I would say it worked because it got Doog's attention and earned a place at JD, which is the only catalyst so far to give it actual value.

When thousands of individual diggers dug and sold their coins for the free btc, it was a "good thing" because it helped distribution, in spite of the fact that unwanted coins were being thrown into the market, which would suggest to me a flaw in the distribution model. But no one was protesting that then, or worried about coin inflation or the affect on price. But now we are, and it just happens to be because it's one guy who lucked out. Again, if you're making the argument he gamed the system, that's an entirely different issue. But if you're just upset by his dumb luck, that arbitrary double standard bothers me.

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

Doesn't follow logically. Someone might start, or someone might not. It's not a given, for one, and if the potential undug CLAMs didn't bother you 2 months ago, why do they bother you now? No one cared at all about all the potential undug CLAMs until they had to acknowledge the error in their thinking that no one would ever dig those CLAMs.

[danonthehill]

The primary purpose of this thread seems to be to create unecessary fear to induce the weak to dump.

[AltcoinScamfinder]

Not exactly unbiased to claim that Clam would die if we changed the rules, coming from someone that is gaming the current system to make $100,000s..

It's pretty unbiased. Changing rules for Clam will not have any affect on me liquidating my clams. You can't make the change without a hardfork and you need at least a couple weeks (if not months) to do the hardfork. I can always accelerate my digging if that's the case. Which you can see, I'm doing right now.

Would be easy enough to request exchanges to freeze Clams, take a snapshot and simply BAN your clam address. Then hard fork it and instate digging parameters that kill future 'megadigger' attempts, or at least make them exceptionally hard.

I also find it exceptionally stupid of you to even try to argue that you are not out to put pressure on clam price, and then accelerate your digging and put up 250.000 sell order. Pretty sure by now that this was actually a well organized 'scam' where you found out about the planned Clam distribution and funded 10000s of Bitcoin addresses just to dig them. I hope Doog hard forks asap and ruins any future money making for you (not that you deserve the money you made so far either).

[cjmoles]

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?

I wasn't thinking too much about hiding the true number of coins. If I did, I would have realized to not dig them in descending block order. The reason I was digging so slowly was because that was the speed I was selling them at on Poloniex. To not risk losing the coins, I did not have a clamcoin wallet set up and I did not want to send more coins than necessary to Poloniex. So there was no need to dig them up faster. The only reason I'm digging them up faster now is to try to remove some uncertainty.

Well, I'm not mad at you.  I lost about 90% of my equity but that's just the way the market works.  I only wish you'd have tried to optimize your position a little better so the crash didn't happen so violently.  If you feel generous you can donate some back:  xPchKegaiAy2LBK3zX9bmBG8Xon2MPbfFj  It's all good though....that's capitalism!

[bhokor]

 , really i dont know which is the best way to take about this....

[AltcoinScamfinder]

Would be easy enough to request exchanges to freeze Clams, take a snapshot and simply BAN your clam address.

LOL

Well, I'm not mad at you.  I lost about 90% of my equity but that's just the way the market works.  I only wish you'd have tried to optimize your position a little better so the crash didn't happen so violently.

I could have been better at hiding how many clams I have. By accidentally revealing that info, it lead to a market panic. The amount of clams I sold pales in comparison to what everyone else dumped on the market. I'm definitely the catalyst. So sorry about that.

Seems quite unlikely that you would be smart enough to dig 10.000s of addresses and at the same time be dumb enough to by 'mistake' reveal your address and 'unknowingly' create panic. Even a complete idiot could have dug slower over a long period or time, hid the digging and made 5x the BTC. And on the flipside, if you still wanted Clam to survive you could simply either dump all you have and reset the market or sell them all OTC. Since you are not, you are still actively pushing price down, or of course you are just breathtakingly stupid.