BAC I have a question for you: do you see a problem with a large exchange, for example coinbase, deciding to dig all of their constituents' wallets for clams, and gaining all the riches from them? (not all exchanges will be noble like Poloniex, as the current digger is proving). If you do see a problem with that, then advocating not changing anything and staying the course is not compatible. Because I think it is a huge problem that goes against the grain of "fair distribution" that was the very intent of this coin. As Doog put it, it would be technically not feasible to somehow "blacklist" exchanges from perpetrating such offense, so we need another solution. But I do think it is worth pursuing a solution as long as it is compatible with the core principles of the coin.
I don't see a problem with it.
"
By definition the rightful owner of any coins is "he who can send them". If you take issue with that, please stick to fiat."
I believe that it is very important for the users to help steer the service in the proper direction by bring up the conversation with them about possibly retrieving their CLAM.
There was talk about being able to stake Clamcoins by using a signature alone. This would open up all of coinbase's clams for users to begin earning off of them.
As Doog put it, it would be technically not feasible to somehow "blacklist" exchanges from perpetrating such offense, so we need another solution.
I'm VERY much against blacklisting and limiting digs of any type. Regardless of how rich the user is or the number of addresses they posses ect.
That may be so, but you yourself argued that you resist change brought about by opportunism, and that your issue is that we are trampling on the foundations of the coin. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the founders of the coin had fair distribution as the core value of the coin, and that one exchange taking control of a vast amount of users' coins would not be considered fair distribution. Luckily, the founders are around us so perhaps they can chime in on this?
I think it is very important to realize that changing the rules along the way is not necessarily compromising the "foundation", so long as it is done for the right reasons, ie as I have stated before, as long as we don't change rules with the purpose of preserving the monetary value of the coin. If we do it to preserve the "fair distribution", then it's ok. Understand, it is not always possible for founders to foresee all possible contingencies from the very beginning. That is why the US constitution had 27 amendments. Did the amendments compromise the constitution? No, because they were enacted in the spirit of preserving and BUILDING upon the the Constitution and what it was trying to accomplish. We have an opportunity now to build upon and improve this coin.
Our country has had some pretty nasty effects due to the amendments that I think we would have been much better without... the majority of those "bad amendments" were pushed by people with their heart in the wrong place and trying to take advantage of timing and such in for them to personally profit more. (Booze for example... they waited until all the men where shipped off and then rammed that shit down the public's throat.)
Yeah there may have been some bad apples. But what about the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments for example? Aren't you glad those were passed? From talking to you before, I get the feeling you are quite happy about them.