Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"
There are at least two different issues at hand:
1. Is there a default vote? How are unvoting blocks counted?
2. Do we consider a majority as enough? A super-majority? Complete consensus?
Complete consensus is a non-starter, in my opinion.
One can not expect the entire network to vote at all, let alone support ANYTHING.
In that case, have a good day; no development team is needed at all.
The debate about default votes and what is considered a majority are underway at the moment.
I personally believe that a rather long rolling window with "No Change" as the default vote would make the most sense. This allows anyone to propose a petition and over time rally support for that change.
I would also argue that we do not require too large of a majority, lest we get nothing done whatsoever.
Regardless, the specifics haven't been worked out yet.
Only a passing agreement that allowing the network to voice their opinions in a verifiable way is the best, unified way forward.
1. Is there a default vote? How are unvoting blocks counted?
2. Do we consider a majority as enough? A super-majority? Complete consensus?
Complete consensus is a non-starter, in my opinion.
One can not expect the entire network to vote at all, let alone support ANYTHING.
In that case, have a good day; no development team is needed at all.
The debate about default votes and what is considered a majority are underway at the moment.
I personally believe that a rather long rolling window with "No Change" as the default vote would make the most sense. This allows anyone to propose a petition and over time rally support for that change.
I would also argue that we do not require too large of a majority, lest we get nothing done whatsoever.
Regardless, the specifics haven't been worked out yet.
Only a passing agreement that allowing the network to voice their opinions in a verifiable way is the best, unified way forward.
1. No. Unvoting blocks are unvoting blocks, and should not be counted (either as part of the total, or as default.) Democracy entails involvement, and liberty entails responsibility.
2. Dependent on the issue being voted upon. I suggest a "scale of severity" to weigh issues against, and to determine the "weight" needed to carry said issues. This "weight" could offset the negatives of not having a default -- I think.
I have held two jobs where the ultimate goal was elimination of my own position, and people wonder why I prefer self-employment.
I would tend to agree with your assessment on the default thing, but for me it comes back to the "digger." If this person's motivation is purely greed; a default vote in this manner would support that position. I think votes should only be counted for those willing to participate. The mouth should be where the money is so to speak IMO.
I absolutely love this idea. If done well it will not only be good for clam, but good for crypto as a whole. Thank the Great CLAM.