BIP Proposal: FLG Negative Marking Protocol

[melvincarvalho]

Summary

Proposal for a negative marking protocol (FLG) to complement the positive MRK protocol. Based on Fehr & Gächter's research on costly punishment sustaining cooperation.

Motivation

MRK enables costly positive signaling ("this is valuable"). FLG would enable costly negative signaling ("this is harmful"). Without punishment mechanisms, cooperation degrades - negative marking may be necessary for ecosystem health.

Proposed Format

Same structure as MRK (37 bytes):

FLG + version (1) + type (1) + reference_hash (32)

Proposed Types

Code	Name	Description
0x01	Scam	Fraud, theft, rug pull, phishing
0x02	Spam	Unwanted, mass promotion, bots
0x03	False	Misinformation, factually incorrect
0x04	Harmful	Dangerous advice, malware
0x05	Impersonation	Fake identity, phishing
0x06	Dispute	Counter an existing MRK
0x07	Expired	Content no longer valid/available
0x08	Violation	Terms/law violation

Design Considerations

• Abuse prevention: How to prevent weaponized flagging/brigading?
• Cost threshold: Should flags cost more than marks?
• Sybil resistance: Multiple flags from same actor?
• Dispute resolution: What happens when positive MRK and negative FLG conflict?
• Sub-categories: Keep v1 simple (single type byte), add granularity in v2 if needed

Open Questions

1. Where do FLG funds go? (burn, validators, dispute pool?)
2. Should flags have expiry/decay?
3. Minimum threshold before flag is "visible"?
4. Appeal mechanism?

References

• Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140.
• BIP-XX: MRK Protocol (positive marking)