Quote from: Hippie Tech on November 12, 2015, 03:36:14 PM

Quote from: gaba on November 12, 2015, 07:17:52 AM

CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.

It became "big" soon after the fork which ensured their strangle hold on the coin supply.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9314100#msg9314100

In other words, they pulled "an eduffield".

The post you linked to is where the devs turned off the exploitable 'lottery' staking system after discovering it was being exploited. At that point CLAM was very cheap and stayed so for another couple of months. Nobody had (or has) a strange hold on the coin supply. You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.

As gaba says, the big increase in the price of CLAM corresponds directly with the launch of Just-Dice, and came 2 months after the hard fork you linked to.

I've no idea what an eduffield is, and suspect you are just trolling. But I thought I should point out the errors in your post anyway.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

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

... will go along with whatever "the official release" does ...

I'm questioning the advisability of the notion of official in this context.

Of course. That's why I put it in quotes.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

What are y'all gonna do if a personal crisis obliges Deb to suddenly and completely disengage?

I guess you mean Creative or Xploited. Deb doesn't have anything to do with CLAM other than being a chat mod at Just-Dice.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

In essence, any claim of official simply weakens decentralisation and renders the operation of the coin more vulnerable to interference and/or disruption. An ecosystem, if it can be achieved, would be more usefully robust and as is common with group activity, the more raucous, the more useful so the vigorous expression of (well-supported) dissenting opinion is a good sign.

We do have a notion of "the official CLAM website", "the CLAM github", and this "official CLAM thread", which is moderated by one of the creators of CLAM. Nobody is under any illusions about the transitory nature of such "officialdom". It's a consensus coin, and if the creators find themselves on the wrong side of the consensus then I'm sure they understand the implications. Perhaps it would be better not to use the O-word, but doing so doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

Quote

Instead of voting, we could simply have people make a series of forks, and have everyone run whichever fork they like best.

Bitcoin's running two forks currently (or was until recently) and multiple forks don't pose any theoretical issues AFAIK, so what remains is just a matter of discovering what passes for practicality.

Bitcoin's two forks are currently identical in terms of which blocks they accept and so there's no issue (yet). If someone was to create and publish a CLAM fork which refuses to accept any transactions that spend or stake an output from block 9999 or earlier (those being the initial distribution outputs) after block 730k (say) (that being a couple of days from now) then we end up with two incompatible chains very quickly. Poloniex will be running one fork, Cryptsy will be running the other, I'll be able to send my coins to both exchanges and sell them twice. That's more than just a theoretical issue.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

Quote

The point of having a provably fair on-chain vote is to avoid that mess.

That would be an economist's definition of fair. My perspective is that this is a sociological issue with a very different definition of fair.

Yes. Only allowing people who hold coins to vote about the future of the coin could be argued to be unfair to those who didn't yet discover the coin. But how else do we make it fair? There are billions of people who didn't discover the coin.

I saw an argument made recently that "I already sold my coins because the price keeps going down, so I wouldn't get a vote and that isn't fair". I would argue that if your solution to solving the problem caused by the massive inflationary pressure is to dump your coins onto others until the situation improves then you don't get to have a say in how to improve the situation. You've made it someone else's problem by selling your coins. Let those who bought them off you have their say, since they are directly involved in the outcome.

Quote from: gjhiggins on November 12, 2015, 03:51:55 PM

Quote

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.

It's a notion pertinent to the social psychology of the context, I made a mistake in mentioning it. Basically, I was just hand-wavily referring to a means of promulgating the social mores of the group. Identity cannot develop sanely in isolation; this is true for the individual and for a social group. For any significant degree of social cohesion to be achieved, group members need to know how a group member is typically supposed to think/behave in order that they may compare themselves against this norm, this is the same factor that lies at the root of pluralistic ignorance and to a degree is in play in this discussion. Just observing the lacuna, thassall.

You sure know some good words.

Thanks for posting some of them.

Quote from: jaysabi on November 12, 2015, 04:32:24 PM

Basically, changing the rules now seems unfair.

Who is it unfair to? The rules wouldn't change overnight. Anyone with coins to dig would have time to dig and secure them.

Quote from: jaysabi on November 12, 2015, 04:32:24 PM

Even if your intentions are to act in the best interest of the coin, your actions will artificially benefit a group, and this cannot be avoided and it is not fair.

The group being benefited is "all CLAM holders". The group losing out is those who didn't bother claiming their free CLAMs in the 18 months that CLAM has been running. They either don't know or don't care about their free CLAM. Is it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time?

Quote from: jaysabi on November 12, 2015, 04:32:24 PM

On top of that, by changing the rules of operation, you're violating the trust of the coin on the most fundamental level. The founding rules of the coin should be treated as sacrosanct.

The rules have changed several times already, so it's too late to hold them sacrosanct.

Quote from: smooth on November 12, 2015, 06:01:43 PM

Looking at the staking graph, it seems that other than a bit of increase (still not enormous) due to the exploit, the rate of staking increased after the change.

In short I don't see anything like the situation with another coin you point to where, due to a combination of claimed bugs and specification changes, early participants received rewards 200 times what is being paid out now.

I think he's only trolling for attention, but even if the rate of staking did change that doesn't create a "strangle hold" on coin supply.

Staking rewards everyone equally and should drive down the price as it increases the supply. Buying X% of the coin supply should cost the same no matter what the staking return is.

I was going to address BAC's most recent posts today, but he has asked me not to, so I will respect his wishes.

I think it is a shame that he doesn't want to be involved in these discussions.