I agree. Now the question is should we disable GE in the meantime or should we keep it enabled? Even if it is bad designed that doesn’t mean it is high priority.
Sounds like a communication mistake here? I guess you wanted to say that we have designed GE in a way that cheating it should be impossible. Yes it was one of several concerns. Not necessarily the primary concern but that is just wording.
You sentence has a different meaning. Is this the primary concern about cheaters? In that case I have to answer with No. My primary concern is detecting cheaters via audits followed by a lot of other ways to cheat the system. GE is somewhere at the end of my personal list.
Not from my side. I would also argue that this is unrelated to GE. I understand that some SNOs managed to lose data and would now try to find a way to repair that but as explained GE is not designed for that. For that reason, an integrity check should be discussed somewhere else and not in this thread.
All SNOs? That would imply that all SNOs are failing GE which is not the case. No we don’t punish all SNOs.
We can’t archive both goals at the same time. If we want to keep the SNOs happy we could just disable all aways to get DQed. This would decrease the quality of the network. DQ and all the penalties around it are in place to improve the quality of the network. It is a tradeoff.
This is not correct. You wouldn’t get an audit penalty for a deleted piece. You might still get the audit request because delete can happen in parallel but before we apply a penalty we double check if the segment was touched including delete.
We are already offtopic and far away from the GE guide. Just because I am far away from my own topic doesn’t mean I am willing to extend the scope any further.
This implies that all SNOs are quality SNOs or all SNOs are bad SNOs. No room between these extremes. Sorry I can’t agree with that. You might want to rephrase it.