Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"
smooth and other "No Change" advocates,
Your arguments are persuasive and well thought out.
I can see myself making some of the same arguments.
Sharpen them and target them for stakeholders.
Explain in clear language why it is in THEIR interest to make that choice.
Everyone will have a voice as this process continues.
If you want a 'benevolent dictator' this may not be the right network for you.
That said, I am personally thankful to have you participating and involved
navaman,
Thank you for the detailed response.
I believe your argument against "stakeholder democracy" could use some depth and introspection.
Fundamentally, you are correct given certain assumptions.
When actors in the system are bereft of choice, "trapped" as it were, such systems inevitably devolve into "might is right" rule.
This "might is right" rule rarely reflects the interests of small stakeholders.
These small stakeholders have no recourse.
I believe this system differs in important respects.
Let us assume that a petition takes place which severely negatively impacts a minority interest.
The outcome of the petition will likely be quite clear well before it is over, let alone implemented.
This minority interest is not trapped and can freely leave the CLAM eco-system if they so choose.
A tyranny with open immigration/emigration and a nearby "better" neighbor quickly only tyrannizes themselves.
Further, though this petition process is not binding and serves to inform development, in a way it IS publicly binding.
The results of petitions will be public and transparent.
They will signify a provable sentiment of the stakeholders of CLAM.
In the corporate world, how long does an executive retain their position if they ignore the mandates of shareholders?
If support is established publicly for a change and an alternative client is released which implements that change..
That alternative client, by definition, would likely be adopted.
This is regardless of the "tyranny" of the development team.
It isn't perfect; but, this gives the community a voice without the concern for "shills" and non-stakeholder manipulation.
I can think of no better way to inform development energy and direction.
Your arguments are persuasive and well thought out.
I can see myself making some of the same arguments.
Sharpen them and target them for stakeholders.
Explain in clear language why it is in THEIR interest to make that choice.
Everyone will have a voice as this process continues.
If you want a 'benevolent dictator' this may not be the right network for you.
That said, I am personally thankful to have you participating and involved
navaman,
Thank you for the detailed response.
I believe your argument against "stakeholder democracy" could use some depth and introspection.
Fundamentally, you are correct given certain assumptions.
When actors in the system are bereft of choice, "trapped" as it were, such systems inevitably devolve into "might is right" rule.
This "might is right" rule rarely reflects the interests of small stakeholders.
These small stakeholders have no recourse.
I believe this system differs in important respects.
Let us assume that a petition takes place which severely negatively impacts a minority interest.
The outcome of the petition will likely be quite clear well before it is over, let alone implemented.
This minority interest is not trapped and can freely leave the CLAM eco-system if they so choose.
A tyranny with open immigration/emigration and a nearby "better" neighbor quickly only tyrannizes themselves.
Further, though this petition process is not binding and serves to inform development, in a way it IS publicly binding.
The results of petitions will be public and transparent.
They will signify a provable sentiment of the stakeholders of CLAM.
In the corporate world, how long does an executive retain their position if they ignore the mandates of shareholders?
If support is established publicly for a change and an alternative client is released which implements that change..
That alternative client, by definition, would likely be adopted.
This is regardless of the "tyranny" of the development team.
It isn't perfect; but, this gives the community a voice without the concern for "shills" and non-stakeholder manipulation.
I can think of no better way to inform development energy and direction.