Quote from: dooglus on October 19, 2015, 12:02:34 AM

Quote from: YoyodyneSystems on October 18, 2015, 11:51:06 PM

Don't over-complicate the solution and don't be overly idealistic.
Not directed at any particular idea, and not meant to be rude, but keep it in mind as a mantra.

I have seen many devs, coins, and communities make this mistake time and time again.
The simplest and fastest implemented ideas that actually make a big difference are the best ones.

Well, the simplest and fastest idea to implement is always "do nothing", closely followed by "cut off all digging with a hard fork".

Neither seems optimal.

I guess I'm still not understand the crisis here. Surely when the CLAM devs decided to distribute so many clams to BTC addresses they did this on the understand that someone might come along and dig them. Wait, more than "understanding", I think it's actually an invitation, right? So what justification is there to try to undo that invitation when someone comes along to take you up on it?

The best rationale that I've seen for making changes has to do with the idea of an "unfairness" related to those who are digging sooner basically financing those who dig later due to the storage of the UTXO corresponding to undug clams (did I get that right?). If I do understand that argument correctly, I can see some validity to it. But I would say to move forward with any changes which devalue undug clams with extreme caution, give people 6 months to a year to prepare. Otherwise you risk impugning your own trustworthiness as developers of CLAM. As SuperClam was saying, the promises made at the original distrubution should be seen as sacred, and undoing them shouldn't be an off-the-cuff response to someone selling a lot on the market.