Quote from: xploited on November 14, 2015, 05:27:00 AM

I'm a little confused how we progressed to Doogcoin. If theres overwhelming support for whatever changes dooglus would plan on making to doogcoin why exactly are we not implementing them in clams?

I think because there isn't overwhelming support for any particular course of action.

There seem to be quite a few people who think it would be wrong to change the existing rules at all - after all, "you already own 4.6 free CLAMs". How can we even have a vote when the people who didn't hear about the magic of free CLAMs yet won't have a chance of voting? See smooth's post for a good example of such.

And then there are a lot of people who are sick of this digger who "already owns 500,000 free CLAMs" and is slowly and deliberately dumping them on the market.

How do you reconcile the wishes of those two groups? We can have a vote and do whatever the majority of stakers decides, but that way you risk alienating the other group. And by doing nothing you risk alienating the group who wants you to "do something".

Smooth's post, linked above, proposed making a 2nd coin for the group who want a different set of rules. What is your objection to doing that? You say you don't want to see a "split", but is it a split, and more than CLAM was a "split" of BTC?

Quote from: xploited on November 14, 2015, 05:27:00 AM

I would much prefer to see a unified path then a split. I don't think it will serve anyone positively in the long run.

Me too, and I have been trying for a few months now to find a way for that to happen. I was hopeful that we could at least agree to put it to an on-chain vote and go with the majority, but apparently even that isn't acceptable to some - and I can see their point.