Quote from: SuperClam on November 10, 2015, 05:43:26 PM

The offensive language and behavior in the thread has gotten out of hand, however.

Until things settle down, posts which are off-topic, not helpful, contain ad hominem attacks or offensive language will be deleted.

This thread is intended to be a forum for deliberative discussion; that can't take place with the type of posting that has been occurring recently.

I second this. Please let's try to discuss this rationally like adults.

Quote from: cryptospout on November 11, 2015, 09:47:52 AM

I'm pretty against the idea of making any changes to how the coin works.

I hear you. But the first question that needs answering is "should we have a vote to decide this?"

I'm not asking how you would vote, but whether we should vote. Lots of people say "we should leave it how it is", but that's one of the options in the vote. I don't see anyone (with the possible exception of BAC) directly saying "we should overrule what the majority wants and try to force an unpopular rule set on the majority".

First we need to be clear about whether this is a democracy, and if it is then we can make a list of the candidates and start voting for them.

If it isn't then I guess we carry on as before, and just have xploited and creative change the rules however and whenever they like. I don't see that as a better system to be honest, and I don't think they do either. Although it would be nice if they would chime in and say what they think about how CLAM governance should be working.

Quote from: Aumerle on November 11, 2015, 09:54:10 AM

I see nothing in dooglas' posts that suggests he favors one set of rules over another, so why so much shouting I'm not sure.

It doesn't make much difference to me personally. Sure I hold some CLAM of my own, but it's nothing compared to my BTC and other holdings. I am much more interested in making the majority happy than with my own greedy self interest. If the majority want to keep things just how they are then that's fine with me.

Quote from: Aumerle on November 11, 2015, 09:54:10 AM

A question though: what do the developers think about doog's idea? This may have been mentioned but i don't see it. Do they have a strong preference for the proposed change over leaving it as it is? Would either result in a vote change their commitment to the coin?

I'd like to see that answered in public too. I chatted a little with Creative in JD after my long post a few night ago, but I don't think she's made a public post addressing it.

Quote from: micalith on November 11, 2015, 10:12:17 AM

The result of a vote doesn't necessarily bring about the result that's in the majority's best interest.

While it's true that it is possible for the majority to be wrong about what's best for them, do you have a better idea? Is there any guarantee that doing whatever micalith thinks is best for example is any better than doing what the majority wants?

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 11, 2015, 11:10:43 AM

Quote from: SuperClam on November 10, 2015, 06:10:29 PM

the rules of this network lends it to being consensus driven

Point of information. The implementation of this peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency dictates that it be consensus-driven; the only practicable leadership in this context is thought leadership.

You're saying that having a discussion about whether we should do whatever the majority wants or not is pointless, because in a distributed system like CLAM "whatever the majority wants" is exactly what we always do whether we like it or not? If the majority wants to stop digging, they will make a fork where digging is prohibited, and being the majority, their fork will win?

While that makes sense in theory, I think for the most part people are too passive to make the change they want to see, and will go along with whatever "the official release" does. Sure they'll bitch and moan if they don't like it ("waaah, CLAM is dying, stop the digger") but won't actually do anything about it.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 11, 2015, 11:10:43 AM

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 07:36:13 AM

So would you prefer not to have the current holders be allowed to vote for what they want?

Point of information. The notion of a plebiscite is irrelevant to a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; there is no central authority to enforce the result.

I had to look up "plebiscite". It means "a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal".

Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best. If it's at all close, we'll have a lot of blockchain reorgs as the forks compete with each other, and a lot of mess as previously confirmed transactions become unconfirmed as the forks battle for dominance.

The point of having a probably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess. If one proposal gets a clear majority of the votes, and everyone sees that that is the case, then "we" can make a new official release implementing that most popular proposal and have a good expectation that the majority will switch to running that code. Obviously we can't enforce that result, but since it is by definition the most popular result, we won't have to.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 11, 2015, 11:10:43 AM

One insight that I've had confirmed by this discussion: the functioning of any altcoin community is seriously hampered by the absence of a reliable mirror.

What do you mean by 'mirror' here? I'm sorry, but you lost me.

Quote from: fitinplace on November 11, 2015, 12:11:08 PM

after someone receives clams into qt wallet, how many confirms does it take before those clams may be used?

None. You can spend unconfirmed coins if you want to.

Quote from: edmundduke on November 11, 2015, 01:33:06 PM

I would also say the coin should stay as it is

OK. But the question is whether you would be OK to go along with the majority if it turns out their opinion is different.

Quote from: edmundduke on November 11, 2015, 01:33:06 PM

Im pretty sure many of the investors want to get the staking to stop so the price would go up and they could exit.

Staking benefits all holders proportionally. If you have 1% of the CLAM market cap and then everyone's holdings increase by 10% due to staking, then you still hold 1% of the CLAM market cap afterwards and your CLAMs should be worth the same. Each CLAM would be worth 10% less, but you'd have 10% more of them. So I don't think your point about wanting staking to stop is valid.

Quote from: Northstar on November 11, 2015, 03:00:53 PM

Quote from: AltcoinScamfinder on November 11, 2015, 02:21:56 PM

Wow, you really come off like a cunt in every single post. Impressive amount of Ass-burgers for someone who supposedly isn't a homeless crackhead. Completely unable to meet questions or opinions without being a douche is almost impressive.

His style is very combative but underneath it he obviously shows great passion for the topic, and we need passionate people, they make the world go'round

I just wish BAC and some of the other participants would keep it civil for fear of this spinning out of control and getting locked down. This has obviously become personal too, which does not add anything good to the topic.

You have to bear in mind that he spent time and money building his clamchecker.com site, where he hopes to make a lot of money buying people's private keys and digging with them. I think that's where most of his passion is coming from - it's in line with his own bottom line.

I would certainly appreciate it if we could debate this based on logical arguments and without resorting to personal attacks.

Quote from: Northstar on November 11, 2015, 03:00:53 PM

If you disagree, please reason with me. Lets resolve this with logic and not emotions.

Exactly this. Please present your arguments without attacking people.

Quote from: Hippie Tech on November 11, 2015, 03:14:18 PM

Mr. Steiner aka. BayAreaCoins, is a narcisistic sociopath who should not be trusted and /or taken seriously.

Whether that is true or not isn't relevant here. Please let's talk about CLAM, not who's the biggest dick. (It might be me, after all).

Quote from: chilly2k on November 11, 2015, 03:59:18 PM

A change to prevent digging is only "to preserve the monetary value of the coin". Unless you can convince me that preventing new people from digging clams is somehow fair. "Sorry, we distributed clams to all wallets, but because you waited to long, you lose out."

So that's a vote against preventing digging. Are you OK with putting it to the vote and going along with the majority decision?

Quote from: chilly2k on November 11, 2015, 03:59:18 PM

Slowing digging (IE only allowed 1 dig per day) would preserve the fair distribution model.

I guess you mean 1 dig per day per person? How are we to tell which digs are made by which people? There's only 1 dig allowed per address already, and there's no way of knowing which addresses are owned by which people so I don't see how such a limit would work. Or do you mean to limit it to 1 dig per day globally? The 'digger' has enough addresses to create a 20 year tailback if that's the case.

Quote from: chilly2k on November 11, 2015, 03:59:18 PM

Just so I'm clear, I hold a fairly large amount of clams and I'm in the red at the current price, but this is more about the coin then the price. If I was worried about the price, I would be in the make a change camp too.

The two camps we're trying to pick between are:

a) have a vote and do what the majority decide
b) ignore the majority, and if they want to change the rules then try to force them to follow rules they are no longer happy with, as if they couldn't just make their own fork

Is there a third camp? Which camp are you in?

I'll try addressing the BAC posts separately if I can muster the energy.