Forgive me if I'm not reading this correctly but if you do a 1 for 1 swap at block 730k the digger would still possibly have 500+k coins as you do not know what he's doing with them once they move to polo or jd.
See a couple of posts up - I wasn't considering a "swap" at all.
I was considering having the initial distribution of the new coin be such that everyone has the same as the amount of already-moved CLAM they had at that block. Coins which hadn't moved since the initial CLAM distribution wouldn't feature in the new coin's blockchain.
And so "the digger" would only have the 38% of his 500k that he moved already, and the next generation of large diggers would have nothing.
The idea being that since some people want digging to stop and others want it left alone, we need a 2nd coin in which digging has stopped.
For those who want digging left as it started, there's CLAM. For people who want it stopped, there's the other coin.
Again, it's just an idea someone brought up. So far I've heard nothing against it other than that "it's a bad idea". But is it? And if so, why so?
Make a new coin based on clam holders it not a bad idea, just when u say u take a snapshot. Then future clam buyers might get 0 for their clam. If u decide to use the snapshot u take for base your new coin if you make a new coin. If u make 2 dicesites or whatever clam will down more. Thats the problem. And it seems like some big investors have made decision based on you saying you take a snapshot even tho you never told you will make new coin. Because whats the point of taking a snapshot if you never plan to make a new coin. Just for fun?
Whatever you choose, if its a vote, or keep it like it is or make a new coin, just do it. Its pointless to have endless disqusion without anything done. When a decision is made, people can decide if support it or not.