{ "id": "d9632c2db56a9f2c6eae9937ea1740c70e2fe4c4332d3c9ede617d1b8ab49635", "pubkey": "e8ed3798c6ffebffa08501ac39e271662bfd160f688f94c45d692d8767dd345a", "created_at": 1728354879, "kind": 6969, "tags": [ [ "poll_option", "0", "If your avatar dies, the stuff you built goes away" ], [ "poll_option", "1", "If your avatar dies, the stuff you built stays" ], [ "poll_option", "2", "Comment with other options" ], [ "value_minimum", "1" ], [ "alt", "Poll event" ] ], "content": "I've realized that when an avatar creates something location-based in cyberspace it needs to be referenced in the action chain or else it leaves open the possibility that objects can be backdated to prior visited locations. This implies that if you start a new action chain it would invalidate everything you created in your prior chain. That's a heavy blow, but it kinda makes sense. However I could also see an argument for not invalidating previously built stuff because it is separate from the avatar — your house doesn't disappear if you get hit by a bus.\n\nI'm not sure what route the protocol should take. So I'm creating a poll.\n\nUp to now, an avatar dying doesn't do much. You just reset your location (which can be helpful). But this change could raise the stakes quite a lot. Let me know your thoughts. Maybe a change like this can wait until later when things are more established.", "sig": "5541460d1891a7247d8b04f55330d21f5fff3206c8c60847ac224285449abcb8a49202854948280d15ad31992b987b27d68cb5a678f5b53b6cb3f9abe7d7272b" }