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
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
It is in the best interest of stakeholders to make the choice for "No Change" because it preserves the integrity of the foundational ideals of clam. Clam was founded as a "democratic" coin with "fair distribution." Deviation from this with no better reason than "self preservation" (read: greed) destroys the integrity of the coin. A coin with no integrity is a dead coin (worthless instead of worth less.)
I do not want a "benevolent dictator". I just don't want to see 51% of Clam-holdings be held by greed-based life forms, and the coin be ruined for everyone for their short-term gains. I admire the Clam devs for their actions and behavior during this ordeal, and I do not envy them. I hope to one day be so constituted.
A tyranny with open immigration/emigration and a nearby "better" neighbor quickly only tyrannizes themselves.
Yes, fundamentally changing the coin unnecessarily is a bad idea.
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.
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.
I would ask that certain decisions require more than a majority to offset the short comings of democracy -- to protect Clam against those who care more for themselves than ideas. Something like a change to the core as is being considered here should be unanimous IMO, or require a two-thirds majority at the very minimum.