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

[pogress]

I personally am against removing digging and changing the initial rules at all. But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice). So I wanted to create alternative that does not harm the unaware clam holders so much. They will be able to claim whats theirs one day. (Compare with removing digging)

Voted for your petition - because of two evils I choose the less. Personally I'd like to support postponed spending of digging rewards but it seems - it technically impossible to restrict digging speed or speed of spending digging reward performed by same person.

If you allow digging only by staking, you restrict digging speed by the same person. The person will be digging almost half percent of his unclaimed Clams daily only, which means the person needs about one year to dig all coins.

By the way, is there petition for this (and what is support) ?

[MonsterZeroPrice]

What is the longterm price or market cap. goal of clams? Is it really to attack btc market cap?

[o_dima]

If you allow digging only by staking, you restrict digging speed by the same person. The person will be digging almost half percent of his unclaimed Clams daily only, which means the person needs about one year to dig all coins.

By the way, is there petition for this (and what is support) ?

It will not work in that way. If we link digging to stacking - those who dug more coins have more chances to stake next block. More coins - more speed.

Not there is no known petition about that.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

What is the longterm price or market cap. goal of clams? Is it really to attack btc market cap?

Keep the baby fed, avoid running out of oil for the chainsaw, simple goals like that.

CLAM isn't a bitcoin clone, and doesn't offer the scripting (contract) features.  [Shoot me, I'm yours].  Unless GMO corn mutates the species into gamblers, CLAM has only a niche application made possible by virtue of its fauceted constituency, and can't approach BTC market cap.

Plus, for technical reasons far beyond me, respected experts consider a POS coin an inferior security model, limiting it's acceptance.

I would put the CLAM market cap upper limit somewhere around the value of Poker Stars, or maybe the Megamillions lottery.

[chilly2k]

 But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).

   It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice.  18.7% of all shares. 

[webchris]

If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.

I don't think that's fair. Leaving the distribution out there forever screws all current and future owners of CLAM, not to mention potential buyers/adopters who were not part of the distro. or are turned off because of the distro. risks. Changing it would potentially screw some unknown people in the future who may have undug clams who happened to have balances in BTC/LTC/Doge addresses on the date of the distribution and have not yet heard of CLAM thru the scouring of all the crypto communities hunting for undug clams. The logic of "it hurts someone" can be in both arguments, for or against. But to me, the argument seems like "lets screw everybody who owns clams and who might have bought clams because there could be a few people out there who still might dig up some clams that aren't whale diggers who ran a website/service/script that left them with a cache of funded addresses".

Again, I'm not saying remove digging tomorrow. I'm saying, have a plan to remove it in the future. Set a date, get out the word. It would be the biggest thing to happen to CLAM since the initial distribution or JD switching to CLAM.

[djhomeschool]

If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.

I don't think that's fair. Leaving the distribution out there forever screws all current and future owners of CLAM, not to mention potential buyers/adopters who were not part of the distro. or are turned off because of the distro. risks. Changing it would potentially screw some unknown people in the future who may have undug clams who happened to have balances in BTC/LTC/Doge addresses on the date of the distribution and have not yet heard of CLAM thru the scouring of all the crypto communities hunting for undug clams. The logic of "it hurts someone" can be in both arguments, for or against. But to me, the argument seems like "lets screw everybody who owns clams and who might have bought clams because there could be a few people out there who might dig up some clams that aren't whale diggers who ran a website/service/script that left them with a cache of funded addresses".

At some point, the coin's market cap becomes large enough to absorb the (theoretical) big digs without much damage. It could be rough in the early days, but if the fundamentals are good, things will be fine long term.

[webchris]

At some point, the coin's market cap becomes large enough to absorb the (theoretical) big digs without much damage. It could be rough in the early days, but if the fundamentals are good, things will be fine long term.

The digs are only part of the problem. The potential for the digs also weighs on the coin. The digs add supply which dilutes the value of individual holders (which is fine to a degree, though too quickly causes instability and turns off backers). The potential for big digs will only go away if all the coins are dug, which most of us agree will never happen. But that risk is there and nobody has a plan for it except wait for the supply to balloon enough to devalue the undug supply.

[SuperClam]

At some point, the coin's market cap becomes large enough to absorb the (theoretical) big digs without much damage. It could be rough in the early days, but if the fundamentals are good, things will be fine long term.

The digs are only part of the problem. The potential for the digs also weighs on the coin. The digs add supply which dilutes the value of individual holders (which is fine to a degree, though too quickly causes instability and turns off backers). The potential for big digs will only go away if all the coins are dug, which most of us agree will never happen. But that risk is there and nobody has a plan for it except wait for the supply to balloon enough to devalue the undug supply.

I think you are correct.

We should blacklist Satoshi's coin's - they represent too much risk.

/sarcasm


Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm; but, I think the similarity bears mentioning.
There is a silver lining: at least our 'risk', as others have pointed out, reduces over time and represents the potential for growth via new users.

[djhomeschool]

I feel like for what the coin can currently do (play dice and gamble on a few sites and buy coffee and snacks on mine (HINT) and buy t-shirts from a guy who draws dicks), the market cap is currently doing quite well. The question becomes - are we looking for a quick payoff, or a slow build? Are we hodlers or pumpers and dumpers?

[webchris]

I think you are correct.

We should blacklist Satoshi's coin's - they represent too much risk.

/sarcasm


Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm; but, I think the similarity bears mentioning.
There is a silver lining: at least our 'risk', as others have pointed out, reduces over time and represents the potential for growth via new users.

Well Satoshi's coins are a totally different thing than CLAM's undug coin for a number of reasons. For one, Satoshi's coins are very likely controlled by one person. That one person knew the value of his/her coins all along and had every opportunity to sell some or all. Because these coins have not moved in all this time, it is safe to assume they will never move. Clearly Satoshi does not have access to the coin, or simply has no great need/desire for money. Could it happen? Sure it could. But the risk is quite low considering those facts.

CLAMs undug coins are "maybe" lost? Maybe in the hands of random people who have never heard of CLAM thru all the evangelism and scouring the net trying to get free money by getting private keys? Maybe many are in the hands of a few singular individuals who ran some type of scam/script/exchange/casino where they had tons and tons of funded private keys? We have no idea who owns them, or what the intentions of those unknown people who find them. Again, I loved the initial distribution and thought it did a great job spreading CLAM to the masses in a seemingly fairly way, evangelizing crypto owners, etc. But I think those great effects have now passed and now we are left with just negative effects. Now we have some massive potential supply granted to people on an arbitrary date which may or may not ever see the market, but will be a drag on the market forever. And we are keeping them around for reasons that make no sense to me.

I feel like for what the coin can currently do (play dice and gamble on a few sites and buy coffee and snacks on mine (HINT) and buy t-shirts from a guy who draws dicks), the market cap is currently doing quite well. The question becomes - are we looking for a quick payoff, or a slow build? Are we hodlers or pumpers and dumpers?

I agree 100%. CLAM is an amazing coin. How much better would it be if we can take away some of the headwinds? All great coins adapt.

[gamblingbad]

I think you are correct.

We should blacklist Satoshi's coin's - they represent too much risk.

/sarcasm


Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm; but, I think the similarity bears mentioning.
There is a silver lining: at least our 'risk', as others have pointed out, reduces over time and represents the potential for growth via new users.

Well Satoshi's coins are a totally different thing than CLAM's undug coin for a number of reasons. For one, Satoshi's coins are very likely controlled by one person. That one person knew the value of his/her coins all along and had every opportunity to sell some or all. Because these coins have not moved in all this time, it is safe to assume they will never move. Clearly Satoshi does not have access to the coin, or simply has no great need/desire for money. Could it happen? Sure it could. But the risk is quite low considering those facts.

CLAMs undug coins are "maybe" lost? Maybe in the hands of random people who have never heard of CLAM thru all the evangelism and scouring the net trying to get free money by getting private keys? Maybe many are in the hands of a few singular individuals who ran some type of scam/script/exchange/casino where they had tons and tons of funded private keys? We have no idea who owns them, or what the intentions of those unknown people who find them. Again, I loved the initial distribution and thought it did a great job spreading CLAM to the masses in a seemingly fairly way, evangelizing crypto owners, etc. But I think those great effects have now passed and now we are left with just negative effects. Now we have some massive potential supply granted to people on an arbitrary date which may or may not ever see the market, but will be a drag on the market forever. And we are keeping them around for reasons that make no sense to me.

I feel like for what the coin can currently do (play dice and gamble on a few sites and buy coffee and snacks on mine (HINT) and buy t-shirts from a guy who draws dicks), the market cap is currently doing quite well. The question becomes - are we looking for a quick payoff, or a slow build? Are we hodlers or pumpers and dumpers?

I agree 100%. CLAM is an amazing coin. How much better would it be if we can take away some of the headwinds? All great coins adapt.

You can diqus until you die, you wont convince them. And they will not convince you.

[dooglus]

 But Petiton:5afa074c for remove digging has currently the strongest support (36.65% on just-dice).

   It's 36.65% of the actively voting shares on Just-dice.  18.7% of all shares. 

No, you have that backwards.

it's 36.65% of the whole Just-Dice weight.
50% of the Just-Dice weight didn't cast a vote.
So it's around 73% of the actively voting weight.

ie. 3 out of 4 of the weight that voted for anything voted to stop digging.

To see this, check https://just-dice.com/misc/clamour_weights.txt - here's a recent version with the numbers made more readable, and with non-5afa votes deleted:

  559,190.49019643 49.04% of the Just-Dice.com bankroll abstains from supporting any petition

        0.01502096 5afa074c e2ef93da ea06c089 ff839af9
    1,090.49167022 02fde4a4 066b223d 5afa074c 7a69a853 ea06c089 eff96b06 ff839af9
    3,808.15882920 5afa074c ea06c089 ff839af9
    8,657.26219872 5afa074c ff839af9
   10,124.50477201 5afa074c 7a69a853 ff839af9
   17,614.46605075 5afa074c ea06c089
   34,914.56979870 02fde4a4 5afa074c ea06c089 ff839af9
   47,721.12550031 5afa074c 7a69a853
  131,975.98013010 5afa074c 7a69a853 ea06c089 ff839af9
  164,747.32557619 5afa074c

560k didn't vote, representing ~50% of the total
1090 + 3808 + 8657 + 10124 + 17614 + 34914 + 47721 + 131975 + 164747 = 421k votes for 5afa, representing ~37% of the total.

[bytemycoin]

At some point, the coin's market cap becomes large enough to absorb the (theoretical) big digs without much damage. It could be rough in the early days, but if the fundamentals are good, things will be fine long term.

The digs are only part of the problem. The potential for the digs also weighs on the coin. The digs add supply which dilutes the value of individual holders (which is fine to a degree, though too quickly causes instability and turns off backers). The potential for big digs will only go away if all the coins are dug, which most of us agree will never happen. But that risk is there and nobody has a plan for it except wait for the supply to balloon enough to devalue the undug supply.

I think you are correct.

We should blacklist Satoshi's coin's - they represent too much risk.

/sarcasm


Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm; but, I think the similarity bears mentioning.
There is a silver lining: at least our 'risk', as others have pointed out, reduces over time and represents the potential for growth via new users.

You say new users so glibly. Which new users exactly? All of the new users in Crypto see clams as an unfair distribution these days. a distribution that only benefits the old timers that have been part of the crypto community.  It seems that Clam digging is a promise to the elite that held crypto at some past point in time. Also a promise to them that they can sit back and make money on the backs of those who have supported the Clam community. If they cared about clams they would have dug a long time ago.  Also a windfall promise for those who created any type of "possible" fractional reserve systems with the 3 best known coins.  

So it basically says: if one created a fractional reserve system, as an old time elite and held a lot of keys for users to send them coins while they simply showed DB digits then you can get rewarded big as clams climb. Granted, not all of these systems have been unfair however, with crypto's sorted history a large number of them have been and dozens if not hundreds of examples can be easily given. It is not just the mintpals and MTgox of the world, it is smaller less knows scam sites all over the globe.

This is who Clam's promise is to. How does this distribution make any sense anymore?  Does it not go against the basic premiss of crypto in general.  Is it not a promise similar to what the Federal Reserve does for today's already established elite institutions? That they can simply print money if they are in the proper pre-established position. Alienating the new comers with a blatantly public unfair policy (Do we hide this by simply changing the name and calling it a "promise"?).  It was a good experiment which I am sure had positive intentions but from an outside perspective it is looking a lot like everything that is wrong with the present fiat system. This should start to become apparent to everyone.

[Jbanna]

I am very surprised at the community's reaction to end digging.

Think of it not as a change to the original proposal. This is where you all are getting wrung up in.

Rather, think of Clam as a unique coin utilizing the incredibly technology of it's blockchain for voting.
Let me ask you: How many other coins are using the capability of the blockchain to it's absolute fullest?

Today Clam is a system where users are actively voting for consensus rule changes.
This will directly improve the further development of a Clams' unique features, thus allowing it to stand out from the rest.

The whole point of open-source software is to build upon it. How are we supposed to build upon a specific cryptocurrency when we're stuck with the initial rules?

Rules are meant to be broken. If you support the longevity of Clam you will embrace this innovative voting system and allow the consensus to form the new rules.

Collectively we are the founding fathers of this currency. Everybody has their say. And consensus rules.

[GordoZ]

Grab popcorn

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Just got ~1200 PMs from the owners of the undug CLAMs:

"Hardly anyone is speaking for us.  Don't let them take our CLAMs."    Got about 50 of these.

"What's a CLAM?"   Got about 1150 of these, many needing Google Translate to read.

"Tell Dououglus to put my 100,000 CLAMs on 0.5% louw, and tell the blououdy journalists tou stoup snououping around!  Domo arigatou!"    Got only one of these.  The signature was just a bunch of letters and numbers in random order, and it was at the top of the PM.  Weird.  It included a photograph of the sender, but I didn't recognize him, so I pitched it.

[smooth]

You say new users so glibly. Which new users exactly? All of the new users in Crypto see clams as an unfair distribution these days. a distribution that only benefits the old timers that have been part of the crypto community.  It seems that Clam digging is a promise to the elite that held crypto at some past point in time.

People who held small to moderate amounts of BTC, LTC and DOGE in 2014 are not really "the elite". That's millions of people including many who became aware of cryptos (esp. DOGE) via mainstream social media. Pre-2013, sure, that's an actual elite. But 2014, no.

[smooth]

If you had undug addresses you wouldn't be suggesting we postpone or cancel digging, don't screw over other people just because you got yours.

I don't think that's fair. Leaving the distribution out there forever screws all current and future owners of CLAM, not to mention potential buyers/adopters who were not part of the distro. or are turned off because of the distro. risks.

Why not choose a different coin then?

There is a whole market out there of coins. If you don't like this coin, pick (or create) a different one!

I fail to see why this coin needs to be turned into something it is not in order to avoid being disliked by someone.

[Hexception]

I cannot believe I have just found out about this. I really need to check my old addresses.