I guess it goes something like this:
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
f. While 51% attack is not a problem do "a"
If 51% attack becomes a problem do "d" if it is ready, or else do "e" until it is ready
He gets heated at times. I find that engaging him while he's being like this tends to escalate things.0
In this case I understand his frustration, and I share his passion. The market effects of this dig are unfortunate, but we all know the risks of investing. I remember discussing the big digger topic long before I ever heard of this digger. A free market will correct itself naturally given time. I think it is very important that we remember why we are doing this: More than financial gain; we are trying replace an inherently flawed system with a better one -- a more just one. I think the point becomes moot if we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard than those we seek to usurp. I am a big fan of profit, but tainting our community's reputation is too high a cost for it IMO. We have to do what's best for CLAM.
So you'll be voting for No Change then. That's your prerogative. Others may feel differently.
I don't get what's so bad about a halvening at the 2 year mark six months from now.. Especially when there are security risks involved. I don't believe there is any risk of loss of reputation for taking reasonable measures to protect the coin.