Quote from: smooth on November 18, 2015, 10:57:01 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on November 18, 2015, 09:34:45 PM

Quote from: YoyodyneSystems on November 18, 2015, 09:20:56 PM

So now it comes full circle again to simply limiting the mining (digging) to an amount that would be equivalent to a PoW coin that has been out for as many months as CLAMs has. Several hundred clams dug per day was a rough approximation I had come up with in the past.

There is no need to stop the digging but it must be limited so that millions of coins cannot get dug in a short period of time. Any low impact solution that does not limit the daily digging in some way will probably not save the coin. I can see it limiting the speed at which diggers can make money and increasing the value of the coin significantly. So diggers might be against it having to wait longer to dig all their coins.
But better CLAMS market cap be $1 million+ again and have to wait to dig your CLAMs than for them to be near worthless as the market cap drops under $100k.

So how long till this vote? And then how long after that for implementation.

I don't share your optimism that slowing the digging will result in a recovered price. Higher than it is currently? Possibly, but I'm skeptical it holds for any meaningful period of time. The problem is that even with slowed digging, there's already a great many more CLAMs out there chasing the same small base of buyers, and the buyers are mainly gamblers at JD. So unless you increase demand for the coin, the base of buyers doesn't increase, and the price doesn't recover, it just keeps slowly dropping.

Now the price might recover initially as confidence is restored in the system and people buy back in to earn their staking income under the delusion that they're "making money" by holding CLAM, but eventually to realize the "profit" they have to cash out to BTC, and when this happens in any meaningful way, the price plummets. This is the long term reality of CLAM. The falling price isn't an anomaly caused by the whale digger, it's the long term trend being accelerated by him.

I agree and that's a large part of the reason, aside from it being unethical, that I'm firmly against any undug CLAM grab. The do well in the future this coin has to grow and that means: a) long term confidence that comes from NOT tinkering with the parameters when it is convenient, and b) bringing new people and services into the ecosystem, which is helped not harmed by having a stronger distribution mechanism.

What if the next big digger is a huge site with a big BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet that instead of digging and dumping (as this digger appears to be doing) instead sees it in their interest to support CLAM on their site and promote it? That will never happen if the short-sighted decision is made to hurt future diggers in response to THIS digger.

Pretty well said. The ethics at this point are the most important thing to me as well, including the concept of the majority (however that is defined: by count or voting weight) having the power to affect the rights of the minority. I don't know that even the "right" decision made here can give CLAM long-term viability, but the wrong decision can certainly destroy it.