Are you arguing with that number, or you think it doesn't matter that this massive inflation we've just seen could happen again repeatedly in the future?
I personally agree with most of what you've said; but I think you are over-estimating a bit.
I think it is likely that there are large diggers in the future, possibly even this large or larger.
I believe most services, properly designed, will have swept their wallets and not have such a large amount of addresses.
A service small enough that it can afford to not sweep their wallets is likewise less of a threat.
I admittedly base this on unconfirmed data; specifically, reports that Poloniex and certain other services have already claimed (deposit addresses were claimed).
I think these edge cases are larger concern than primary services.
They are also probably less likely to exist.
I would also argue that a large amount of keys are un-claimable.
I think that the impact of these future diggers is likely to be smaller than this digger.
Though, a digger even half this size at the moment would probably still be widely felt in the markets.
smooth is correct in his previous argument:
As the moneysupply increases via staking and other more conventional "digs", the impact of these larger diggers necessarily goes down.
They are simply a smaller percentage increase in a larger market.
The downside of this argument is that our inflation isn't amazingly high.
It is in fact currently lower than BTC.
Meaning that the process of walking along this path of minting the moneysupply, as it relates to damping down the effects of 'diggers', is a slow walk.
All-in-all, this whole situation is muddled mess.
I believe that the 'digging' feature of CLAM is an essential part of what makes CLAM... well, CLAM.
I think this is a situation where intent matters.
I would likely not support a proposal that changed 'digs' simply for the sake of doing so.
That said, if a strong majority supported a change, and I verified Poloniex/Cryptsy and other services with interests in CLAM did as well....
If I had good evidence that a super-super-majority of the network wanted the change, and thus a soft-fork would be easily successful, there would come a point where we simply must accept the fact that the vast majority of those who support the network want the change.
The network IS, after all, it's users.
I would much prefer a change that made sense on it's face, without consideration of digs.
A change that would make sense to implement, improving network conditions, even if this 'digger' had never shown up.
In this vein-of-reasoning, and with the assumption that this is only my personal opinion, assuming anything at all ends up happening to 'fix' the dig situation:
Fees:The network needs either a larger static fee, a dynamic fee system, or a time-based fee system.
This isn't optional - as our current fee system is inadequate to serve it's primary purpose: DDoS and Bloat protection.
Subsidy:The argument that future large diggers pose an existential 51% risk is unlikely, but shouldn't be ignored.
I wouldn't be against an increase to the subsidy IF that increase was EQUALLY offset by an increase in the fee-system.
Combining those two elements, we have a fee system that charges a per-byte-per-block fee which is attributed to stakers.
We end up with a fee-system that reflects time, and more effectively prevents DDoS and Bloat.
We incentivize the staking of larger outputs, additionally improving txout bloat.
We have a situation where, in the future, pruning will be more effective due to the fact that unstaked outputs "expire" from fee over a long period of time.
We have a fee-system that is also robust enough to support the implementation of CLAMspeech as a decentralized, distributed database.
We more quickly 'mint' our moneysupply,
without increasing it, and thus reduce the risk of 51% and the impact of large diggers.
We increase the incentive to stake, and thus secure the network.
There are likely additional benefits of fixing the incentive structure that aren't even listed.
I think smooth is correct in his concern that fundamental changes are made in a reactionary fashion to this recent digger.
Again, I would much prefer a change that made sense on it's face, without consideration of digs.
In the end, if changes are to be made, the users and stakeholders of CLAM will need to make their personal opinions known via CLAMour.
Poorly laid plans that gain traction via CLAMour will hopefully gain attention; and thus criticism.
I expect this to be a process that occurs over time, informed by CLAMour.
