Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"

https://i.imgur.com/iUvl9Xu.png
Do these people who already own 95% of the CLAMs get a vote, or only the people who have their CLAMs in the JD bankroll?

If you already scam people with DOGE, BTC or LTC you can do that again with CLAM. Something is obviously wrong here. And CLAM is big only because of Just-Dice.com. That's the fact. Just look at the price chart.
All those hacked DOGE web wallets, Bitfunder, BTC web wallets... are next.
I'm mad because I didn't mined BTC in 2009.

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".

I looked back and I don't see anything egregious about that change. In the lottery era the rewards were usually 0.1 per block but occasionally higher. When the change to a flat 1/block was made, the claim from SuperClam was that the average under the lottery was very close to that. I did not mathematically test this claim but roughly speaking it doesn't look incredibly far off to me.
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.
If someone has different information I'm interested in hearing it.

Nice follow through on that eduffield btw. Roll Eyes

The DRK/DASH shills used the very same tactics when it came to down playing concerns, skewing the facts and/or ignoring the obvious.
You somehow missed the fact that the reward reduction was much greater than 200x. "In short"... ANY reward reduction is a big fucking deal and Dooglus' "You can easily buy large numbers of CLAM on the open market.", makes for some stanky icing on this Clammy shitcoin cake.

Stake inflation was made linear and slightly increased after the update you reference.

Your claims are not only plainly inaccurate; they are the exact opposite of what occurred.

I have no qualm with on-chain verifiable voting, assuming:

the vote is a count of blocks staked,
a vast majority of the network is running a client which implements the voting feature,
the window over which the vote is counted is long enough to allow smaller stakers to have a chance to get a block and thus contribute.

This vote of course, by definition of how the network operates, can only inform the direction of development.
dooglus, xploited, creativecuriosity, and anyone else working on project are volunteers and can obviously not make any promises.
However, assuming a solid reliable vote from the staking community and the ability to get a working pull-request/code-change together that shouldn't be a problem.

Further, I would not like the more complicated time-based, per-byte-per-block proposal included in the vote.
This concept was put together before the digger and is not designed to "solve" that "issue" - though, it would mildly affect it over the long-term.

I would personally caution the community against fear and rash decisions.
Everyone who is a stake holder in CLAM should have their opinions (if respectfully submitted) considered.
The worst possible outcome from all of this would be to alienate our brothers and sisters who are contributing and helping with the project or community.

I have had a busy week (month).
I intend to be around over the next couple days more vigorously.
If you can't tell by perusing the thread history, I despise moderation/censorship.
Last warning to keep it productive and on-topic in the thread.

ANY ad hominem(personal) attacks will be deleted when they are seen.