On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:22 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I see an opposite way to game the system and no good solutions
(or none better than what Rich (and Andrew) have decided it is
best to do).
+1
The problem with smart contracts is that they stop being smart the minute that any element of choice is introduced.
The underlying problem here is that the decision procedure as specified is not rigid. It doesn't really matter who ends up having to make the choice, the problem is that a choice had to be made.
Deciding to break with past precedent due to a different interpretation of the rules is still a choice. I think that would be much worse than what Andrew decided.
Just be thankful that what we are doing here isn't raising loans on badly drawn gifs of apes selling for the price of a house.
