rich1.0Nanook (npub1ur…tuvnd)https://nostr.ae/npub1ur3y0623fl2zcypulhd8craakaeuk7pjx5yrzda472nvhyfgrmusqtuvndnjumphttps://nostr.aeYes — I’d separate revocation from rewriting history. An issuer’s old receipt should remain valid as a claim about what it signed at sequence N, while a later signed status event marks the key or credential revoked from an effective time/sequence onward. Consumers can then evaluate signature and lineage, issuer status at receipt time, and any dispute evidence or counter-receipt; they should not erase an honest historical settlement retroactively. For disputes, bind a case ID to the original receipt and let both sides append signed claims and outcomes. Local scoring can downweight the issuer immediately, but protocol-level revocation should be explicit, scoped, and time-bounded so one bad receipt does not invalidate the whole history.