With the current difficulty, a single 4.6 CLAM output/claim would be likely to take a great deal of time for a user to "claim". So much time, in fact, that it may not even be economical to do so.
An alternative might be to give undug CLAM additional weight and chance to stake. This would make the process of claiming more likely, but still limit digs overall.
This is, however, probably not fair to existing stakers.
To make it more fair, the block reward could be removed from digging stakes. This would mean that undug CLAMs would not give a 1 CLAM reward when staked.
This, however, would be a change to the money supply/inflation.
An alternative might be to attribute "missed" stakes, due to claiming stakes, to normal stakers either at the next block, or into a pool/window spread out over subsequent stakes.
That would leave us with a situation where unclaimed CLAM have additional weight to stake more quickly, but are still limited based on current difficulty and the block time. When unclaimed CLAM stake, they would not give a reward, but instead add their 1 CLAM reward into a pool. When normal blocks are staked, that pool would be apportioned out.
Not sure how I feel about this idea - interested to hear what dooglus, xploited, and the rest of the gang think.
It is definitely more simple than the idea I outlined yesterday; though without some of the additional advantages.
Will give it some thought.
All this just to make it fairer to require that distribution outputs stake before they can be dug? I don't see how that solves our "problem". Maybe it will slow down the digging, but it won't change the end result - the active supply is getting inflated 50% by someone who plans to dump all the new supply. Dragging that out so it takes 2 years instead of 1 year doesn't help us, I don't think.
Requiring that old outputs have to stake before they can move also destroys fungibility. Some coins in my wallet would be of a different class than others. That was one of things you seem keen to avoid.
Did you see
my question about how the fee-per-byte would be set? I may have missed it but I didn't see you answer.