An r-block b with an empty payment and comment (disapprove, h′) pointsto an r-coin payment block b′, where h′ points to the reason for disapproval: To b′, if it isunbalanced, or to a block b′′ equivocating with b′
Again, this can be derived out of DAG. Seems redundant.
It would somewhat spare computation, as one can check equivocation by following a pointer, but then he would need to ensure that both equivocated blocks are observed by a self-parent chain of the "DISAPPROVE" issuer.
Users cannot reply, like, or retweet without comment
i like a lot of this post (and have spent time trying to find where on twitter i mentioned withdrawing/correcting one's own posts, because i feel strong affinity for a lot of the ideas here),
but this particular suggestion is fascist & stupid & strongly deserves glaring disapproval.
this isn't just a take-backs tool. we can't just say bad thing after bad thing, say we were wrong, & get to deny people their stage to respond. tweets are a collective online phenomenon. critique & review must be ongoing, beyond the point where fault is accepted. we don't stop socialization at the point that someone says, yeah, i guess not.
A very astute observation by @devonzuegel with some good advice to overcome this fact: "digital spaces generally have no equivalent of a disapproving glare."
i'm both glad we're going to spend the next 3 years talking about moderation & online space & reinforcement & socialization but also i'm already so so tired of it.
in huge part cause i don't think we are loose enough to engage productively. we're still staring at our belly buttons, spaced out, fascinated. and not doing a damned thing.