1. We come up with a list of proposals, for example:
a. leave everything as it is
b. disallow all digging
c. some kind of decay in value of undug CLAMs over time d. CC's very complicated and involved change
e. CC's quick and simple change
They'd need to be specified in detail.
2. Every time anyone stakes a block, they vote for their favourite proposal(s). In the CLAMspeech, or coinbase input, or wherever it fits.
3. As soon as any proposal has more than X% support when looking over the last Y% of blocks, that proposal is deemed to have been selected by the community. To avoid 2 similar proposals splitting the vote and making "tactical voting" a viable strategy, we could use
instant-runoff_voting to decide the winner. It's unclear what X and Y should be. I guess 75% and "6 months worth" are reasonable starting points to consider.
As many others have said the CLAM distribution has done its job, now it needs to evolve in order to avoid the security risk of a single entity controlling a vast majority of the supply. and you'd still be giving 6 months of advance notice at this point. if the digger wants to dig them all at once, so be it.. at least there would be an end in sight.
I tend to agree, though I had to cringe at the "single entity" bit... Then again, it doesn't matter whether I agree. I shouldn't get a casting vote even though the coins are mostly in my physical control.
I can understand how ending all digging, even at a future date, would be considered too drastic.
I'd like to expand on Option C, what about digs halving in value every 2 years? The first Halvening would happen in May 2016, going from 4.6 to 2.3 CLAMS reward per address.