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

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Kinda restores your faith in humanity, don't it?

[gamblingbad]

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Kinda restores your faith in humanity, don't it?

All people have self interest no matter what they tell, leaving digging open makes risk for all holders.

[cryptolives]

how can i claim clams

If you controlled BTC, LTC or DOGE in May of last year, you can 'claim' by:

1. Download the client here: https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/releases/tag/v1.4.17
2. Click File->Import wallet
3. Browse to your BTC, LTC or DOGE wallet.dat file.
4. Let the chain sync past block ~10,000

so say i had 890 btc, how much clams would get would it be 850

It's 4.6 CLAM per address that held non-dust amounts on that day in May 2014.

so 4.6 clams per one address

[clf99]

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Kinda restores your faith in humanity, don't it?

geeks are philosophical purists, until they're not.

[smooth]

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Kinda restores your faith in humanity, don't it?

geeks are philosophical purists, until they're not.

It isn't philosophical purity necessarily, it is possible to reach the same conclusion on the basis of pragmatism about what it takes to succeed. When considering an artificial digital asset that is backed by nothing, reasonable people can disagree about how important stability of parameters and confidence (and confidence in stability of parameters) are to maintaining and growing long term value.

[SuperClam]

Deleted a handful of comments concerning possible censorship in Just-Dice trollbox, including accusations of "Chuck_Bartowski" being a 'nazi'.
Rebuttals seemed to suggest the supposed 'censorship' was justified.

Sorry folks, this needs to move to the Just-Dice thread.

For the record, navaman:
CLAM, as a network, obviously supports free-speech - we etch it into the block chain, after all.
Sorry, but concerns with Just-Dice need to be aired with dooglus and/or on the Just-Dice thread.

Edit:
Sorry Chuck, I've deleted the original post and the responses - and will continue to delete responses.

[Chuck_Bartowski]

Sorry Chuck, I've deleted the original post and the responses - and will continue to delete responses.

Glad you did, i always thought that this thread isnt the right place to call people off but some people thought otherwise..

LLTGC

Greetings, Chuck

[dooglus]

Looks like somebody wants to buy some CLAMs!

[dooglus]

No, really, don't delete this post.  Chuck may be in favor of censorship but you don't have to be.  This is not a rant against a person.  I want this added as a petition to Clamour.  I can't download and run the client on my PC so how am going to create a petition?  I can't do that from the withdrawal on JD can I?

Yes, you can. Write your petition. Hash it. Upload it. Put "create clamour <sha256> <url>" as the speech when you withdraw. I recommend txti.es, with the first 8 hex digits of the hash as the rest of the URL.

There needs to be an advisory in an anonymous way for people to register their dissatisfaction with how speech is handled in the community.

You seem to be confusing the CLAM community with the JD community. This is the CLAM thread, and you're complaining about the behaviour of a JD mod in the JD trollbox... You have the wrong thread.

Anybody here is can be muted or banned by getting on the wrong side of Chuck or any mod.

No, not anybody here. Here we get censored by Creative, not by Chuck.

Discussions about what discussions are allowed over a poker table at a casino aren't held in Federal Reserve meetings, even though the poker table plays with US dollar denominated chips.

JD isn't a democracy, and maximizing profits isn't a significant goal. Mods are there to keep the chat tolerable. You seem to keep calling Chuck "Nazi", "Fascist", etc. and he mutes you. If you have a problem with any particular interaction with him, please email the JD support address and I will look into it, and talk to Chuck if appropriate. Posting to the CLAM thread and insulting Chuck isn't the way to deal with your grievances.

[SuperClam]

No, really, don't delete this post.  Chuck may be in favor of censorship but you don't have to be. 

I think I will, as you were warned.
There is no place for detailed descriptions of "fascism" in this thread; despite my general contempt for the same.

I will quote that which I feel is on-topic.
JD specific stuff, again, needs to go to the JD thread and administration.

There needs to be an advisory in an anonymous way for people to register their dissatisfaction with how speech is handled in the community.

There is, it is called 'CLAMour'.
I don't believe it is directly 'relevant' - but, nothing is stopping you from starting whatever petition you like.

As dooglus pointed out, you can use the JD withdrawal process to start a petition.
If you would like personal help to do this, please stop into #clams on freenode and contact creativeCLAM.

The most important factor is that Clam largely derives its value from JD with many people making substantial investments along side Dooglus.  The actions of Dooglus, Deb and their mods directly affect the value of this crypto.  JD is a private enterprise and can make a speech policy which is deliberately restrictive of ideas they don't like.

While this true, it doesn't suggest that CLAM development, or the CLAM development team, should 'manage' private services which utilize CLAM.

Clam is also a private enterprise which shouldn't restrict speech or the ability of owners to handle private property in ways they see fit.  However, why shouldn't there be a discussion between two private enterprises which have a business arrangement.  This is generally how business is conducted if one company is unhappy with the actions of another which might be harmful to either or both. 

CLAM isn't a private enterprise.
CLAM is an open source software project.

Last I checked, we don't restrict speech on the thread or elsewhere.
Of course, that doesn't include conversation which is off-topic, spam, etc.

This brings me to the second point and return to the issue of stakeholder democracy.  As stated previously, the idea generally seems grand to those deemed stakeholders or pigs found to be more equal than others.  This leads the lesser equals with little alternative but to be at the mercy of equals?  I should congratulate Clamour for not being like this in the way Marxism and various off shoots are, several people have stated this is about being unequal and securing that fact.  The fact is you have disenfranchised a large portion of the user base with this system.  I can neither vote nor add a petition for several reasons.  The first is I have no Clams and therefor any vote I cast will count for zero under the staking allocation of votes.  The second is that I am unable to run the Clam client of on my PC due to the poor DSL and wallet software drastically slowing down my rig.  I downloaded it but it never synced and is too far behind now to try again without leaving it running for several days.  Don't even try to say download the torrent.
This system is very similar to the the early American restriction of voters to male property owners.  The U.S. and Anglosphere have the remarkable ability to reform themselves which is probably why we have avoided internal revolutions.  The unfairness of male property owners having an outsized voice in society has long been known.  In fact, we in the U.S. deliberately expressed the ability of any person 18 years or older, with very few exceptions, to cast their vote by amending the Constitution by explicitly stating it.  There are countless people whose voices are silenced even though they use Clam regularly but don't stake any.  It gets even better.  Clams is substantially more dependent on the disenfranchised then by the currently blessed stakeholders. 
CC has expressed the long term problem with Clams is paying for the upkeep of the Clamchain and that long-term holders wouldn't be paying their share of the costs under the current system.  The people who do support Clams financially are those that use it as a currency on a regular basis.  I pay fees every time I conduct a transaction which is the same regardless of size.  Why don't you add up the various fees paid by wallets and see who it is that is contributing the most to health of the network.  Don't forget that owners are charged fees for withdrawing so that a person withdrawing from JD is paying that transaction cost.  Then, and this will be my next petition, is for votes to be allocated by the financial contribution each address makes for the longterm health of the Clamchain.  Hmmm, wouldn't want to emulate the more equal than equal system so how about every address that pays a fee within a window gets a vote.  We could call the system POF, Proof of Fees.  It would naturally be pronounced poof.

I consider petitions to change the process underlying CLAMour to be 'fair game'.
Post the petition and rally support behind it.
Again, if you need help posting it; let us know.

Is this where we put proposals?  Here is mine:
Chuck is a Fascist/Nazi
...

Take it to the Just-Dice thread.

[SuperClam]

navaman,

I know you almost certainly feel that you are being treated unfair.

I deleted your post because it concerns Just-Dice.
Despite your opinion, Just-Dice != CLAM.
These complaints do not belong in the CLAM thread (here).

Please contact dooglus, the Just-Dice admin, to resolve your problem.

I quoted the portions of your post that were on-topic for this thread and even offered to personally help you to create a petition in CLAMour.
Re-posting deleted posts is just going to get you banned from posting to the thread (which makes no sense, and I would rather not happen).

[navaman]

No, really, don't delete this post.  Chuck may be in favor of censorship but you don't have to be. 

I think I will, as you were warned.
There is no place for detailed descriptions of "fascism" in this thread; despite my general contempt for the same.

I will quote that which I feel is on-topic.
JD specific stuff, again, needs to go to the JD thread and administration.

There needs to be an advisory in an anonymous way for people to register their dissatisfaction with how speech is handled in the community.

There is, it is called 'CLAMour'.
I don't believe it is directly 'relevant' - but, nothing is stopping you from starting whatever petition you like.

As dooglus pointed out, you can use the JD withdrawal process to start a petition.
If you would like personal help to do this, please stop into #clams on freenode and contact creativeCLAM.

The most important factor is that Clam largely derives its value from JD with many people making substantial investments along side Dooglus.  The actions of Dooglus, Deb and their mods directly affect the value of this crypto.  JD is a private enterprise and can make a speech policy which is deliberately restrictive of ideas they don't like.

While this true, it doesn't suggest that CLAM development, or the CLAM development team, should 'manage' private services which utilize CLAM.

Clam is also a private enterprise which shouldn't restrict speech or the ability of owners to handle private property in ways they see fit.  However, why shouldn't there be a discussion between two private enterprises which have a business arrangement.  This is generally how business is conducted if one company is unhappy with the actions of another which might be harmful to either or both. 

CLAM isn't a private enterprise.
CLAM is an open source software project.

Last I checked, we don't restrict speech on the thread or elsewhere.
Of course, that doesn't include conversation which is off-topic, spam, etc.

This brings me to the second point and return to the issue of stakeholder democracy.  As stated previously, the idea generally seems grand to those deemed stakeholders or pigs found to be more equal than others.  This leads the lesser equals with little alternative but to be at the mercy of equals?  I should congratulate Clamour for not being like this in the way Marxism and various off shoots are, several people have stated this is about being unequal and securing that fact.  The fact is you have disenfranchised a large portion of the user base with this system.  I can neither vote nor add a petition for several reasons.  The first is I have no Clams and therefor any vote I cast will count for zero under the staking allocation of votes.  The second is that I am unable to run the Clam client of on my PC due to the poor DSL and wallet software drastically slowing down my rig.  I downloaded it but it never synced and is too far behind now to try again without leaving it running for several days.  Don't even try to say download the torrent.
This system is very similar to the the early American restriction of voters to male property owners.  The U.S. and Anglosphere have the remarkable ability to reform themselves which is probably why we have avoided internal revolutions.  The unfairness of male property owners having an outsized voice in society has long been known.  In fact, we in the U.S. deliberately expressed the ability of any person 18 years or older, with very few exceptions, to cast their vote by amending the Constitution by explicitly stating it.  There are countless people whose voices are silenced even though they use Clam regularly but don't stake any.  It gets even better.  Clams is substantially more dependent on the disenfranchised then by the currently blessed stakeholders. 
CC has expressed the long term problem with Clams is paying for the upkeep of the Clamchain and that long-term holders wouldn't be paying their share of the costs under the current system.  The people who do support Clams financially are those that use it as a currency on a regular basis.  I pay fees every time I conduct a transaction which is the same regardless of size.  Why don't you add up the various fees paid by wallets and see who it is that is contributing the most to health of the network.  Don't forget that owners are charged fees for withdrawing so that a person withdrawing from JD is paying that transaction cost.  Then, and this will be my next petition, is for votes to be allocated by the financial contribution each address makes for the longterm health of the Clamchain.  Hmmm, wouldn't want to emulate the more equal than equal system so how about every address that pays a fee within a window gets a vote.  We could call the system POF, Proof of Fees.  It would naturally be pronounced poof.

I consider petitions to change the process underlying CLAMour to be 'fair game'.
Post the petition and rally support behind it.
Again, if you need help posting it; let us know.

Is this where we put proposals?  Here is mine:
Chuck is a Fascist/Nazi
...

Take it to the Just-Dice thread.

Thank you for proving my point all along these past weeks.  The original post that was censored was a direct appeal to the Clam community to express their displeasure at censorship occurring within it.  The second issue is that the post giving instructions on how to petition through Clamour were so poorly written I didn't think the withdrawal button on JD was an option.  When the original post was deleted no mention was made of it needing to put it on Clamour.  You just dismissed it as irrelevant and tossed it away.  See, it is you who get to decide that right?  You get to decide which words I use?

The irony of a joke showing Chucks true colors is too rich.  It gets even better that the powers that be within JD and Clam blame the person complaining about censorship for causing a ruckus.  You will make a good central banker like the brilliant Ben Bernanke who, like everyone involved at JD and Clam, has such a thin skin he sent a bunch of his clown posse to harass somebody that criticized him.  I thought the Fed just issued and managed money with a little bank regulation but it turns out they can harass private citizens too.  Heaven forbid that the Fed will ever be held accountable for its actions.  A person no less than Milton Freedman was against Central Bank Independence as well which makes much more sense right now than the day I learned that fact.

Welp, you can have your little Clammies and your open source project to do whatever.  The point in calling it a private enterprise was to distinguish its right to free association as opposed to government which is bound to not discriminate based on speech.  Well, that is supposedly true but a culture which doesn't respect freedoms in private will sooner or later make restrictions public.  Throughout these past weeks, I may have gotten frustrated at times and got a little too personal but my statements were made in good faith.  You can call me a lot of things like asshole or tell me to go fuck myself as you did last night, but I don't troll.  Much of this has to do with a simple concept called trust.  It shows up repeatedly in empirical work on economic growth.  This occurs so much that despite certain flaws in international time series, I am fairly convinced trust plays a central role in human economic interactions.  So, I will leave you with that to think about and I will be off to not bug here.  So, happily click the delete button.

[gamblingbad]

free speech = spam forums ?

[SebastianJu]

I believe most services, properly designed, will have swept their wallets and not have such a large amount of addresses.
A service small enough that it can afford to not sweep their wallets is likewise less of a threat.

I think a service that sweeps out addresses and does NOT backup the private keys and/or let these addresses stay in a different wallet, would not be trusted by me. It always can happen that users use very old deposit addresses. I would hate to tell them that we deleted the privkey and so the coins vanished into nirvana.
A backup of the private keys should be the minimum.
In fact i think it would be not a bad idea when mtgox would claim his clams if possible. A lot of people wait for compensation, around 20 to 25% were in the conversation mentioned some months ago. With digged clams, handled correctly in order to not crash the market, would likely be able to raise that percent.

I think you mis-understand.

It doesn't matter if they keep a "backup".

Those backed up addresses didn't have a balance, and thus didn't get CLAM.

Didn't you say that no big digs will happen because big exchanges swipe addresses? That would only make sense when they would swipe addresses that had clams attached to. With a backup they could still claim them.

And i think exchanges would need backups because there are enough users that will send bitcoins to old addresses of them. These bitcoins otherwise would vanish if no backup of the private keys of swiped bitcoin addresses existed anymore.

[SebastianJu]

That simply is not true. There are all the time people that did not hear of clams and that check their wallets. Then there are others that try to hunt those addresses down.

Sure you can say the community has to decide but the community would limit itself with such a decision. It would mean that they betrayed all the other potential clammers out there. Who of those people will have warm feelings about clam then? Who will use it and for whatever reason? Because just-dice exist? There are other dice sites for bitcoin too. Why jump into clams then?

So yes, the community can change their project but the currency would lose trust because when you change such a fundamental rule that gives advantages and deletes it then how can you trust such currency/community?

By the way... i made the fun and checked old escrow addresses, found more addresses of these users through blockchain analysis and yes... there are a lot of users who have clams and did not hear of clams yet. Only when one is in the community it might be hard to imagine. Clam is still pretty unknown in the cryptoworld. At least for his digging feature.

It's not only about losing trust, i think some people could get to really hate clams and the community if they found the digging feature and that they actually would have owned clams.

Well, at the end the decision pro fork is nothing other than selfish.

Only my opinion.

Changing the rules is bullshit - clam scammers unite and buy bitcoins now before its completely ruined

I hear this argument all the time, and it is the most puzzling thing to me.

Why can't cryptocurrencies change and adapt? Are we saying this amazing technology is limited by the first thought of the first developers? I'm not saying the developers were wrong. I think the distribution of CLAM was probably the most fair way to distribute a cryptocurrency. But I think had they a chance to do it over, I would imagine it would be tweaked to avoid the problems we have today.

I get that it certainly seems unfair that people who own the currency now would change the rules that affect future owners. And I sympathize with that logic, but I think it's flawed. Who are the future owners of CLAM? Are they "buyers" or diggers? When someone heard about clam 6-8 months ago and asked about it, you could tell them they probably already had some! But now with so many people entering crypto (and with so many having left before), what would that look like? If you tell 100 random BTC/doge/LTC owners today about Clam, how many would have undug clams? I would love to know this number. Whatever it is, I bet it has been dropping steadily every day. Basically, the desired effect of distributing clams fairly to people who have other crypto was accomplished, but now is no longer an effective tool. Undug clams are either lost, or they are cached in large collections of addresses controlled by individuals who haven't realized it yet. And once they do, we have more whale diggers with a huge supply and no interest in holding clams.

Having this super massive cloud of clams that could start pouring into the market at any time hurts holders now, and it will continue to weigh on holders and buyers. Acknowledging the distribution "worked" and checking it off as complete (by limiting or ending future digging at some point), you remove all that uncertainty.

[SebastianJu]

I am honestly surprised by the number of people who are opposed to doing anything to reduce the impact of future big digs.

Do you need to care at all about the decision? I guess you probably have so many clams that your decision on this will nearly be final when the rest of the community votes 50%-50% isn't it? Maybe i overestimate the amount of clams you own.

[SebastianJu]

How many people first heard about CLAMs, then dug their own, then bought more and now are holders/stakers?  Why do we want to stop that from happening in the future?

If you have a few old addresses, then heard about CLAM just after the digging was stopped, would you then buy CLAMs, or just forget about it?

Exactly my thought. Killing the dig feature will take away a way how new clammers were born. And they supported clams afterwards. How will new clammers born afterwards? What exactly has clam that you need to use it? Just-dice? Not really a reason with all the bitcoin dice sites.

I think this is risking the foundation of clams.

[SebastianJu]

Hi!

What about not removing digging, but just spread digging into next few years.
Something like allow digging only for 1/X undug addresses:
I.e. For X=20
year 2016 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 16
year 2017 allows to dig only addresses where sha256hash(UNDUG_CLAM_ADDRESS)%20 == 17
...
So it takes 20 years to dig them all and then it can start new round.

What do you think?

EDIT:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/new-law-no-more-than-850-gold-mining-dredges-allow/

I think it would be fairer then to lower the amount of clams that are bound to a bitcoin and so on address. That way every address can be claimed though the digging slowly get's less. Similar to block halving. If it would be slow then it would be not a so hard break.

I think with your way all addresses still could be claimed. You only need to wait for the next year to claim the rest, isn't it?

[chilly2k]

   Crazy Idea Time. 

We're trying to address a few problems.  Notably the vulnerability to large dig's, and the desire to keep digging alive.  Also this would encourage people  to always be on the look out for new clams.  Maybe even get more folks to run the wallet locally. 

What if we could somehow seed new clams onto the chain at some interval (Weekly) and ties them to BTC,LTC, and Doge addresses that have been used recently (last 2 months?)  Then only allow digs from block that are so new (Last 14,400 blocks or 10 Days.). 

   The idea being there are new opportunities every week to claim clams. And if you have an Active BTC, LTC or Doge wallet you may have clams.    But you only have 10 days to claim your clams.  We could decide how many should be distributed, and start off fairly large and shrink the seeding based on how many are actually claimed. 

   Since you can only dig from the last X (14,400) that would lock up the original claims in the first blocks.    Based on the selection of the addresses anyone might get new clams.  The time limit will keep BIG users from accumulating to many free clams. 

   Just throwing it out there,  I'm sure this would not be an easy thing to do technically,  But, before we even look at that, does this even have merit?  Maybe I missed something?   

[clf99]

CLAM
The clam doth fritter my mind
So close that shell, tightly bind

Protect the flesh, soft body hidden
Predators, everyone forbidden

Rigid shell scalloped in unison
Form the bond to close within

The frilly layer undulating rhythm
Soft body concealed and hinged

So perfect beneath hardened chalk
Worming tongue
Gaping mouth
Wordless talk

Oh to rest inside your precious womb
Forever bask in your rosy gloom

Hold my body with your silken lip
Precision pulse throb through your grip

Mixing Love, Patience, Hope for the world
Depositing on your pink precious pearl