Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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.

On just this subject (dig/not dig) I vote for no vote. The whole rational behind a change is a knee-jerk reaction to the price of clams.

I also don't think CC and Xploited should just make changes without a vote. I think changes for the security/integrity of the coin should be made without a major consultation. Any change that impacts the core philosophy of the coin should be discussed, and if needed put up for a vote. The coin elders should be bring these things up. Doog, should we add your name to that short list of elders?

Lottery -> fixed stake was done for a security issue. Something needed to be done and quick, and was. No fuss no muss....

But lets say they want to change the block time. From 1 minute, to 15 seconds, or 5 minutes. in either case your going to have folks complaining. But if there is a logical reason to do it, then we should have a vote.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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?

This is where a counsel of coin elders would help. They should review the proposal and decide if a change would impact the core coin values. Not if it's technically possible, but does it make sense for this coin. They don't even have to agree on the change, just that if it was done it wouldn't impact the coin.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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.

You mentioned that people are to passive to make the change, but then state they could run a custom wallet to register their vote with. Part of the problem I have with the whole "Vote" idea is just that. If just dice make the default "No dig" that will probably win, and the same with making the default "Don't dig". 99% of the folks NOT on Just dice, will just run the same old client they've been using. The very passionate would take the time to download the new wallet. I don't think you would get the results your looking for. I'm not implying your for digging or no-digging, just that your idea would not be a fair vote. Plus your going to have to deal with all of the crying from the losing side.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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.

I really hope he meant digging, and not staking.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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?

I would prefer not putting it to a vote, I won't cry and complain if it comes to that. I can't say one way or the other how I would feel about the outcome.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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.

Now I'm going to expose my stupidity. (or maybe brilliance). 1 per day per person. Don't we have all of these dark coins, because normal coins can still be tracked. I though somehow you could figure out someones IP address. So 1 per day per ip address.

Someone mentioned staking the clams in order to be able to claim them. I imagine this as the client code would unlock the original clams when they were claimed, and once they staked from their original block they would be normal clams.

Quote from: dooglus on November 11, 2015, 08:31:16 PM

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?

Wow, "That" is a really loaded poll

... But I would have to say B. I just don't feel making a change to appease the market is the right choice, and it shouldn't even come to a vote. (Can you tell I work for a big company that does this all of the time...)

Your assuming the majority wants to make the change. Thus not allowing a vote, means your in favor of the status quo. And then assuming the majority of folks that read and respond to this thread in the next hours/days/weeks, want to vote, how would you announce it so the most people would understand and be able to participate? Also if you go with the blockchain as the vote, you do realize that the coins on the losing side will most likely not stake either.