The digger has enough and it is time to switch to stake-only )
I think the best solution is for you to update your staking copy of clam to not mine dig transactions and reject blocks with dig transactions if it is the current best block. If it is the second-best and has dig-transactions, it becomes your local best block.
This removes the possibility of prolonged fork, while applying pressure for people to also not accept dig transactions. Most importantly this can be done without modifying upstream or getting into committee driven consensus.
I originally believe in clam because i was told the initial distribution was fair, the fairest you said. But if the only point of clam is to now make a digger rich and get tokens to play on just-dice then count me out.
It sounds like you are suggesting that I should abuse my position of controlling the biggest CLAM address to effectively change the consensus rules - I would be saying "if anyone includes a 'dig' transaction in a block, I will orphan it".
That seems like a massive abuse of people's trust. People deposited their CLAM at Just-Dice with the assumption that I would stake them according to the network rules.
But, how about this for an idea? And it's just a thought I had, not a plan I intend to put into action. Comments appreciated!
What if Just-Dice ran two instances of the client (a regular one, and one that ignored all dig transactions) and allowed JD users to select which instance they want their coins staked with? The default of course is to follow the existing rules, but each user can opt to move their coins to a wallet that considers all new dig transactions as "illegal".
pros:
* the community gets to decide for themselves the future of CLAM, with each member having a vote in proportion to the size of their holdings; if the "economic majority" wants digging to stop, digging stops
cons:
* 1. if opinion is split close to 50/50 then the two clients could cause long reorgs, with associated chaos (confirmed transactions becoming unconfirmed, etc.)
* 2. creating a contentious fork like this feels 'dirty', and a bit too "Bitcoin XT" for my liking
* 3. hard to do this in a provably fair way; how can anyone be sure that I really stake their coins from the correct wallet?
* 4. such a rash move could well lose us the support of the CLAM developers
1. I suppose the 50/50 problem would be addressed the same way that XT forks the chain - only after 75% of the last N blocks somehow 'vote' for the change. ie. wait until a clear majority of the staking weight is in favour of the change happening.
2. idk
3. JD's weekly proof of solvency could include an indication of each investor's 'vote'
4. I know that xploited and creative have both said that they would be in favour of doing something to address the 'digger problem' if the community was in agreement. Maybe this is a way of finding out what the community really thinks.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Let me know what you think...