...
One fundamental aspect of CLAM is that it was well known from the very get-go [...]
It's true. We knew from the outset that this was a risk. We also knew from the outset that having a "lottery" style staking system (block rewards 'randomly' between 0.1 and 1000 CLAMs) was probably gameable. When it became clear that it was being gamed, the rules were changed to remove the lottery system. That was before JD started using CLAM, but it happened. The CLAM rules have been changed several times already in reaction to observations. It's not like the current ruleset is somehow untouchable. It's just the current ruleset.
Previous changes have been handed down to us by the CLAM developers with little to no consultation with the larger community, and certainly no voting.
I understand that quite a large percentage of the community thinks we should leave digging just as it is now. If that's the most widespread opinion (modulo CLAM holdings) then that's what a vote would result in happening.
Is there anyone who thinks we should leave digging just as it is now
even if the majority of CLAM holders want it to be changed? ie. is there anyone who doesn't want this put to a vote?
Doog, not sure if you read my entire post, but I don't advocate leaving things as they are necessarily. What I was getting at is that changes are not necessarily bad as long as they are made in order to preserve the fairness of the coin and its core principles, and not its monetary value. The changes that were implemented that you speak of were done in that manner, and that's ok.
My suggestion as a solution was to restrict large commercial entities with access to other people's addy's from digging, like exchanges and gambling sites. That was not the intent of the distribution model and is not fair to average joes, especially ones whose addy's the exchanges would use to dig. I was hoping you would chime in as to the feasibility of "isolating" such digs, technically speaking. Is it possible?