Amusing idea, but the OP needs to make clear how the coins are distributed.
~4CLAM are given for each unique txout, unique address, or by balance? If it's by txout, then this is a HUGE scam... If it's by address, then this is a HUGE scam... Why? Because anyone who designed this coin and had half a brain would have split up a million Doge into a million wallets, and had 4 million clams...
---
When importing, the debug.log shows a LOT of exceptions being throw:
******* exception encountered *******
ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue too high
******* exception encountered *******
ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue negative
******* exception encountered *******
******* exception encountered *******
(This goes on for pages). Something buggy happening during the import scans?
Did you run -salvagewallet during the first load? Otherwise your wallet.dat will hold tx information for invalid tx's, thus the "too high" and "negative" errors i suspect.
Also I was wondering about the dogecoin make a million address thing myself. While still costing a good amount in fee's, especially if you wanted to try to redeem those 1M 1 dogecoin addresses, you'd stand to gain more if things were to take off.
If everything is correct I believe the majority of the address's must have came from the bitcoin blockchain. I say this because according to what Im seeing there are not enough addresses with positive values on the other chains. Keep in mind the block chains I'm parsing would not be in sync with the blockchains that the clam devs used so this is currently just a guestement at best.
Ive been playing around with the one of the block chain parser and Bitcoin has currently over 2.7M addresses with balances above 0, which would be the majority of the ~3.1M Clams addresses distributed too. I don't claim to the accuracy of said parser I used but I checked a few of my addresses in the list and the balances were correct.
If thats true, which intuition based on observation is suggesting is, that only leaves ~400k addresses between Litecoin and Dogecoin. I've yet to parse their blockchains but if the numbers on there chains are correct Litecoin and Dogecoin only add up to ~400k of the ~3.1M.
It would seem the majority of the coins went to Bitcoin holders.
I'm working on a script to test that, convert the address back to ripemd160 -> back to bitcoin and then see if it was a used address on blockchain.com
I'd be happy to provide the script for anyone interested, although I warn you, its in Go.
Edit: Clam Devs, the source used to create the original send would be very helpful as the current block-chains will be out of sync and not provide an accurate picture
Your both right!
Well, your both PARTIALLY
right, and
wrong 
First, the errors in the first quote: ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() .....These are precisely the type of errors one would likely get if they attempted to import a wallet.dat file into CLAMS without the --salvagewallet command. A wallet file contains much more than simply the privateKeys, and this extra meta-data (which doesn't exist in the CLAMS chain) causes a bit of fuss if without the above argument.
~4CLAM are given for each unique txout, unique address, or by balance? If it's by txout, then this is a HUGE scam... If it's by address, then this is a HUGE scam...We expected this type of response from the outset of the project. We don't blame folks, who have a huge balance of Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin, for being a bit
upset and Angry that we didn't base the CLAM network sends on their
balance. Afterall, you DESERVE more CLAMS, yes?
There is a small problem with the above statement, however. You don't. Sorry
If you have a very large balance in Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin you absolutely DO deserve all the Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin you've earned!
Accruing Crypto is a tough business! But that does not entitle you to a larger share of CLAMS, unfortunately.
FACT: Our first proto-type of the data dumps from the Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin chains were based on balance.
FACT: It was a horrible idea.
FACT: The U.S. Government currently controls over 213,000 Bitcoin
THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.
FACT: The top 100 Addresses in Bitcoin control around 15~20% of all Bitcoin in existence.
FACT: The top 100 Addresses in Litecoin control around 40-50% of all Litecoin in existence.
FACT: The top 100 Addresses in Dogecoin control around 40-50% of all Dogecoin in existence.
The entire concept behind CLAMS was to distribute as many coins as possible to AS MANY PEOPLE as possible, given the astounding data resource of the block chain.
The entire concept behind CLAMS was NOT to distribute as many coins as possible to AS FEW PEOPLE as possible, given the above concentration of currency in the existing chains.
In fact, that imbalance of wealth in the existing chains is likely the primary REASON and SEED of the idea for CLAMS itself.
So, despite the fact that some users, who have very large balances in the original Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin chains, might not agree - we are sorry. We're not giving you all of the CLAMS just because you own all of the Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin. Sorry
We also, however,
didn't exclude you (despite the fact that we did initially consider hand-picking and eliminating addresses with extremely large balances).
Finally, xploited is correct:
We didn't hand-pick or edit the data from dumps WHATSOEVER. The data from the dumps and Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin block chains was taken verbatim without any edits, dust was eliminated, duplication was eliminated, and pubKeys were converted to the CLAMS network.
Simply by being so much larger, and more developed, this does mean that a very large majority of the addresses were Bitcoin addresses.
Without doing some conversion I don't know the exact number, but I think xploited's math is pretty darn close.
Roughly 85~90% from Bitcoin and the remaining from Litecoin and Dogecoin sounds about right.
We didn't exclude anything from Litecoin and Dogecoin, Bitcoin is just that much bigger.
Cheers!
Final Note:
Let us clean up the code (Wasn't commented and was never meant to be seen by others) in our scripts, and we will release the scripts and such in the near future
We intended to eventually do so anyways
