Quote from: smooth on November 17, 2015, 12:26:08 AM

SuperClam, coins are not corporations. In the latter case, there is a legal right to elect a board, which in turn gives control over management and ultimately the assets (shareholders can even vote to dissolve the corporation, which gives them access to the assets directly).

There are no such powers that exist on the part of coin holders. There are really only two things that coin holders can do:

2. Individually or in collusion with other coin holders, stake maliciously and "51% attack" the network. This can include: a) blocking all transactions in a sort of doomsday button to destroy the coin, b) selectively blocking transactions (and/or blocks) to gain some advantage for the attacker, c) rewrite the chain to perform double spend attacks.

This idea of coin holder voting is creating a system that facilities and to an extent legitimizes #2. It makes the entire system less secure and therefore ultimately less valuable, even though it may seem expedient in the short term for the purposes of "governance", especially if you happen to be in the majority.

I am going to steal this.

CC, somebody in JD chat has repeatedly stated that this coin is experimental. Due to this, he, let's call him Uck for the time being, the experiment can be changed at any time and therefore rules such as digging or staking can be altered for the sake of improvement. What is your position on the experimental nature Clams? Were the people who sunk $1000's into the coin aware of this? How do you feel about changing an experiment mid-stream because you don't like the outcome? This is assuming of course that the hypothesis is along the lines introducing a digital currency as a means of exchange and not technical. Should we get into a discussion of his fallacy that any change is good or an improvement. Unfortunately, his line of thinking has infected even hard sciences as publish or perish rules and the rankings game persist.

I would write more but pain has returned.