Quote from: USB-S on November 29, 2015, 11:04:17 AM

By removing the core distribution process from clam, would kill this coin.

Yesterday Creative posted her draft "CLAMour" voting proposal, allowing the community to vote whether they want to change things like the distribution process. The coin didn't die.

Quote from: USB-S on November 29, 2015, 11:04:17 AM

If you can't take the volatility of an altcoin you shouldn't even be here. You still have the option of cashing out before the digger dumps the rest of his stash. Give the market some time to shift into place.
Clam will end up being around 10k sats before it starts rising again.

CLAM hit a low of 72k then a high of 300k a few hours ago:

The digger now claims to have sold his remaining CLAMs. The price started rising as soon as he said this.

Quote from: P-Funk on November 29, 2015, 12:40:41 PM

Not sure about the 10,000 block time frame though, it doesn't seem like enough time for a real vote to occur.

It's a rolling window of 1 week. It's not like a petition has a week to gather support. It lives until it gains 50% (or whatever) support over any 1 week period.

Quote from: P-Funk on November 29, 2015, 12:40:41 PM

Is the Clamour name a take on the word clamor?

No, on the word "clamour.

Quote

clamour
verb
Make a vehement protest or demand:
scientists are clamouring for a ban on all chlorine substances

Quote from: rocoro on November 29, 2015, 01:19:31 PM

Quote from: dooglus on November 29, 2015, 05:41:00 AM

They will stake separately, but may be recombined when you stake, depending on your config.

So, how do you set the config so they won't recombine?

   combinelimit=0 in clam.conf

Its default value is 1, which means it will attempt to combine values of less than 1 CLAM together, but nothing bigger than 1.

You can also:

   combineany=1

which means it will consider combining outputs even if they are on different addresses.

For Just-Dice's hot wallet I use:

   combinelimit=25
   combineany=1
   splitsize=13.37

to keep the outputs around 13 to 25 CLAMs in size, and allow cross-address combining.

Edit: oh, and I meant to say... if you want to see an example of a big transaction sending to multiple addresses with {"amount":...,"count":...}, check this one out. That's me splitting all the recent new Just-Dice deposits up for staking.

Quote from: Trent Russell on November 29, 2015, 02:02:00 PM

About the current/future whale diggers, one possibility I haven't heard mentioned would be very simple and would dilute the initial distribution: increase the reward. There's at least a precedent for changing the reward system in Clams.

That certainly has a couple of benefits over decreasing the 4.6 CLAM reward:

1) We don't have to break any promises. "If you owned BTC you may already own CLAM!" stays true. The 4.6 per address that you "may already own!" stays there. We aren't accused of deleting people's property.

2) Technically, it's awkward to implement a reduction in the initial rewards. What if I've dug my address but not spent or staked it yet? I see 4.6 CLAMs in my wallet. One day I update the client and what, my balance drops to 2.3? What if I try spending my 4.6 CLAMs just before the hard fork, but by the time it confirms the fork has happened and my transaction is no longer valid? It's a mess.

Quote from: Trent Russell on November 29, 2015, 02:02:00 PM

This would likely be terrible for the price. It might push us below 0.001. (<- That's intended as dark humour. I have looked at the price today.)

It would reduce the price per CLAM, but everyone's CLAM holdings would be growing at the same pace (except for those who aren't staking, of course) so the market cap should stay about the same.

I doubt such a proposal would be successful, even though it's better than trying to reduce the initial reward in my opinion. Rich CLAM holders voting to make themselves richer isn't good from a PR angle...

Quote from: DrkLvr_ on November 29, 2015, 04:34:11 PM

I still don't really understand what's supposed to happen in the event of a successful vote. Can you expand on that? So far I gather that nothing really happens, it's just a metric you can use to assess whether x% of people are likely to run a new fork with your proposed changes. It'd be up to the petition-maker to implement any changes they'd like to see, and convince people to run the new version.

Is that about the gist of it?

Yes, that's about it. It's a way of discovering what "we" want. Once we know what we want, implementing it is relatively simple. And since so many of us want it, it shouldn't be hard to find one of us with the necessary skills (or budget) to make it happen.

Quote from: rocoro on November 29, 2015, 05:44:44 PM

how do I use -staketo

just this?:
./clamd -staketo=

Yes, or in clam.conf without the hyphen.

I use:

staketo=xJDCLAMZW9xZEFRfWhxXkcCGYkHAzhsjT5

in clam.conf.