Quote from: triplef on July 05, 2014, 03:06:05 AM

Quote from: SuperClam on May 24, 2014, 06:59:35 AM

I am not quite sure where this sentiment is coming from...
First of all, a responsible exchange would keep the majority of their coins in what are called "Cold Wallets".
The transaction which moves the coins to that cold wallet, would cause them to LOSE any CLAMS they might get from the deposits that make it up.
Further, I think the fact that we do not even HAVE an exchange yet, makes all of this a bit silly.... don't you?...?

wondering here as in op you say you can move your coins OUT to another wallet and still get clams for past transactions...
and here you say "The transaction which moves the coins to that cold wallet, would cause them to LOSE any CLAMS they might get from the deposits that make it up."
which is which ?

The Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin block chains are not referenced in real time. There is no interaction between the different chains. The Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin block chains were dumped and processed shortly before launch and the CLAM distribution was frozen in time at that time. So, the process of taking multiple "outputs" of CLAMS and accruing them into a single key would essentially opt-out an exchange from receiving CLAMS for the vast majority of their "outputs". Indeed, in our conversation with Poloniex (who seem to responsibly handle their user's funds), their share of CLAMS was significantly smaller than would have been the case had they not combined outputs. Thankfully for their users, they did still receive a small share of CLAMS - which they intend to distribute out to their users.

Very impressed with the honesty and character of Poloniex for this reason alone. They are the first and only exchange to do so.

Any transaction NOW, will not affect your share of CLAMS what-so-ever, as the block chain analysis on Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin is frozen in time. This is why, moving your Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin to a separate wallet will not make you lose your distribution of CLAMS: it is only transaction gathering multiple "outputs" into a single wallet BEFORE the distribution and launch of CLAMS that would negatively affect your share.

Quote from: triplef on July 05, 2014, 03:54:54 AM

they dont involve girls...they hire for 5$ on fiverr...
now..for multibit paranoid scumbags aka trollers....
click -> file -> new wallet.. name it ( new wallet) click receive get address....copy... click back on old wallet... click send ...paste your new address -> send ALL your coins to new address -0.001 -> click export -> unprotect -> save...
open the file..gather all the addresses you see...open clam ..debug -> console.. importprivkey without the <>... do this for all addresses you had in old wallet...
et voila... your coins are safe in a new wallet file + you ge tclams...
for the non tech out there

Thanks for the How-To! That is essentially the process, yes Grin

Concerning the "girls":
If there are any gals out there who would like to help promote CLAMS, we are happy to help!
The one gal on our Dev team is just not the mascot-gal type Tongue

Quote from: Lpingui on July 05, 2014, 04:31:12 AM

The currency time for a long time, now what circumstance?

Hope I am translating properly:

We launched CLAMS with whisper a bit ago. Unfortunately, CLAMS is a horse-before-the-cart type of situation. You see: when a user clams their CLAMS they are essentially minting the initial moneySupply. This means that Users(Demand)==CLAMS(Supply). We hope that this will aid CLAMS in maintaining a bit more of a balanced price-point at market - that was the hope anyways. It also, however, means that CLAMS is an extremely small distribution crypto at the moment. This makes it very difficult to push large volume. However, with volume comes more users, and with more users comes more volume.... I think you get the point.

We are moving slowly and steadily, and as a development team: are still working hard on CLAMS.

Quote from: phzi on July 05, 2014, 05:30:39 AM

Quote from: triplef on July 05, 2014, 04:29:50 AM

also...
running a diff in balck vs clam /src/base58.h ~-402,10
   void SetSecret(const CSecret& vchSecret, bool fCompressed){
   assert(vchSecret.size() == 32);
- SetData(128 + (fTestNet ? CBitcoinAddress::PUBKEY_ADDRESS_TEST : CBitcoinAddress::PUBKEY_ADDRESS), &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
+ SetData(fTestNet ? PRIVKEY_ADDRESS_TEST : PRIVKEY_ADDRESS, &vchSecret[0], vchSecret.size());
   if (fCompressed)
   vchData.push_back(1);}
why change from pubkey to priv key ?
btw to check diff ( theres a few but no call home functions found i used :
git clone URLGITBLACKCOIN
cd blackcoin
git remote add -f b URLCLAMGIT
git diff master remotes/b/master
git remote rm b

Sigh... did you try reading the code before posting dumb questions?
line 282: SCRIPT_ADDRESS = 5,
line 410: PRIVKEY_ADDRESS = CBitcoinAddress::SCRIPT_ADDRESS + 128,
line 414: PRIVKEY_ADDRESS_TEST = CBitcoinAddress::PUBKEY_ADDRESS_TEST + 128,
Nothing harmful here when you look at what this actually is.

Quote from: Abitcoinfuture on July 05, 2014, 06:07:59 AM

Everyone calm down, it's tested and verified, get your CLAMS and ignore that other 100mil coin project. Come to Poloniex today!!!

Thank you very much for the vote of confidence, everyone

Indeed, the referenced code change is not a risk what-so-ever to your Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin.

Awhile ago, a moderator on bitcointalk.org added a big red warning at the top of this announcement post.

We promptly requested (in a big green "everything is okay" message below it) that if anyone could point out a place in the code that made CLAMS capable of stealing anyone's coins - we would promptly DELETE CLAMS entirely.

To the moderator's credit, the warning was removed (Thank you, by the way).

I think the fact that no one has taken us up on that offer should be evidence enough for those who are concerned.

Phew!
Still a couple more posts to respond to -> have some other social things to take care of; will be back in a bit to finish up responding.
Thank you everyone for being involved!